Final evaluation of space research under the seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration : final report.
Date: 2015-03-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, advanced technology industry, applied research, diffusion of innovations, new technology, remote sensing, report, satellite, space research, space technology

Final Report – December 2014 

Final Evaluation of Space Research under the Seventh 
Framework Programme for Research, Technological 
Development and Demonstration 

ENTR/172/PP/2012/FC – LOT 4 

[Written by Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting] 
[December – 2014] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate K - Aerospace, Maritime and Defence Industries 
Unit K/1 - Policy and Space Research 
Contact: Mats Ljungqvist 
E-mail: GROW-K1@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Report – December 2014 

Final Evaluation of Space Research under the Seventh 
Framework Programme for Research, Technological 
Development and Demonstration 

ENTR/172/PP/2012/FC – LOT 4 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

           Directorate K - Aerospace, Maritime and Defence Industries    

2014 

EUR NB-01-14-005-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 

ISBN 978-92-79-35112-9 
doi: 10.2769/89813 

© European Union, 2014 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF) 

PRINTED ON TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (TCF)  

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

PRINTED ON PROCESS CHLORINE-FREE RECYCLED PAPER (PCF) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

FINAL EVALUATION OF SPACE RESEARCH UNDER THE SEVENTH FRAMEWORK 
PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND 
DEMONSTRATION – FINAL REPORT 

Authors: 

  Paul Simmonds 
  Cristina Rosemberg 
  Neil Brown 
  Nelly Bruno 
  Pierre Hausemer 
  Monica Pesce 
  Marco Bolchi 
  Leonardo Corbo 
  Erkko Autio 

Date: December 2014 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 9 

1.1  Structure of the Report .................................................................................... 9 

2.  METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 11 

2.1  Literature review ............................................................................................ 11 
2.2  Secondary data analysis .................................................................................. 11 
2.3  Beneficiary survey .......................................................................................... 12 
2.3.1  Overview of respondents ....................................................................... 13 
2.4  High-level interviews....................................................................................... 15 
2.5  Case studies .................................................................................................. 15 

3. 

FP7 SPACE RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 17 

3.1  Background ................................................................................................... 17 
3.1.1  Policy context and legislative framework ................................................. 17 
3.1.2  The Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7) 2007 - 2013 ......... 18 
3.1.3  Space Research in the Seventh Framework Programme ............................ 19 
3.1.4  FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: Space ............................................... 21 
3.2  Overview of projects ....................................................................................... 21 
3.2.1  Projects and value ................................................................................ 21 
3.2.2  Findings from the case studies ............................................................... 26 
3.3  Overview of participant and participations ......................................................... 34 
3.3.1  Projects status ..................................................................................... 34 

4. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 1: RATIONALE - WHY ..................................................... 36 

4.1 
Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space Research ......................................................... 36 
4.2  Programme level objectives and stakeholder needs ............................................ 41 
4.2.1  Programme level objectives ................................................................... 41 
4.2.2  Stakeholder needs as initially assessed ................................................... 42 
4.2.3  Links between programme objectives and stakeholder needs ..................... 45 
4.3  Framework of FP7 and clear logic between general and specific objectives ............. 51 
4.3.1  Framework of objectives ....................................................................... 51 
4.3.2  Links between general and specific objectives .......................................... 54 
4.4  Coherence between EU Space initiatives ............................................................ 55 
4.4.1  Regulatory affairs ................................................................................. 55 
4.4.2  Galileo and Copernicus .......................................................................... 56 
4.4.3  European Space Agency ........................................................................ 56 
4.5  Overlaps and complementarities ....................................................................... 59 
4.5.1  Overlaps and complementarities with ESA ............................................... 59 
4.5.2  Overlaps and complementarities with Member States ................................ 61 
4.6  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 66 

5. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 2: IMPLEMENTATION – HOW........................................... 68 

5.1  Overview of FP7 Space Research Actions ........................................................... 68 
5.1.1  Projects and participations ..................................................................... 68 
5.2  Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 69 
5.3  Appropriateness of the level of funding ............................................................. 74 
5.4  Effectiveness of FP7 Space Research compared with other sources of funding ........ 75 
5.5  Drivers of efficiency and sources of inefficiencies ................................................ 76 
5.6  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 76 

6. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 3: ACHIEVEMENTS – WHAT: DIRECT ACHIEVEMENTS 
- OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................ 78 

2 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

6.1  Geographical coverage .................................................................................... 78 
6.2  FP7 Space Research outputs ............................................................................ 79 
6.2.1  Major research participants.................................................................... 79 
6.2.2  Cross-country links ............................................................................... 83 
6.2.3  Publications and scientific outputs .......................................................... 84 
6.2.4 
Intellectual Property Rights .................................................................... 87 
6.2.5  Gender................................................................................................ 93 
6.3  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 94 
6.3.1  Participation in FP7 Space Research Actions ............................................. 94 
6.3.2  Outputs of FP7 Space Research Actions ................................................... 95 

7. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK  4:  ACHIEVEMENTS  –  WHAT: WIDER ACHIEVEMENTS 
– RESULTS AND IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 96 

7.1  Achievement of participants’ objectives ............................................................. 96 
7.2  Space-based applications ................................................................................ 98 
7.3  Exploration of space as a platform for coordination ............................................. 98 
7.4  EU scientific and technological capacity and leadership ........................................ 99 
7.5  Cross-cutting objectives ................................................................................ 100 
7.5.1 
International engagement ................................................................... 100 
7.5.2  Capitalising on the innovation potential of SMEs ..................................... 103 
7.6  The competitiveness of the European space industry ......................................... 105 
7.7  Contribution to EU Space Policy ...................................................................... 107 
7.7.1  The objectives ................................................................................... 107 
7.7.2  The impacts ....................................................................................... 108 
7.8  Conclusions ................................................................................................. 110 

8. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 5: EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ........................................ 113 

8.1  EU added value of space activities .................................................................. 113 
8.2  Conclusions ................................................................................................. 115 

9. 

CONCLUSIONS: ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .................................... 116 

9.1  Relevance questions ..................................................................................... 116 
9.2  Effectiveness questions ................................................................................. 117 
9.3  Efficiency questions ...................................................................................... 120 
9.4  EU added value questions .............................................................................. 122 
9.5  Coherence and complementarity questions ...................................................... 122 

10.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 124 

10.1 
10.2 
10.3 

Evidence Building Block 1: Relevance – why ................................................. 124 
Evidence Building Block 2: Implementation – how ......................................... 125 
Evidence  Building  Block  3:  Achievements  –  what:  direct  achievements  -  outputs
127 
Evidence Building Block 4: Achievements – what: wider achievements - results and 

Evidence Building Block 5: European Added Value ......................................... 129 

11.  ANNEX A:  SIX CASE STUDY REPORTS .................................................................... 130 

11.1  Geoland 2 ................................................................................................. 130 
11.1.1  Summary of the impact ..................................................................... 130 
11.1.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 130 
11.1.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 132 
11.1.4  The implementation of the project results ............................................ 135 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 138 
11.1.5 
Impacts on end users and wider social effects ...................................... 139 
11.1.6 

3 

10.4 
impacts 128 
10.5 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.1.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 140 
11.1.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 140 
11.1.9  Sources ........................................................................................... 140 
SAFER ...................................................................................................... 144 
11.2.1  Summary of the impact ..................................................................... 144 
11.2.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 144 
11.2.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 146 
11.2.4  The projects’ results and beneficiaries ................................................. 148 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 149 
11.2.5 
11.2.6 
Impacts on end users and wider societal effects ................................... 151 
11.2.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 152 
11.2.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 152 
11.2.9  Sources ........................................................................................... 153 
AGAPAC ................................................................................................... 157 
11.3.1  Summary of the impacts ................................................................... 157 
11.3.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 157 
11.3.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 158 
11.3.4  The project results and beneficiaries ................................................... 159 
11.3.5  The implementation of the project results ............................................ 160 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 160 
11.3.6 
Impacts on end users and wider social effects ...................................... 161 
11.3.7 
11.3.8  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 162 
11.3.9  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 162 
11.3.10  Sources ......................................................................................... 162 
AEROFAST ................................................................................................ 163 
11.4.1  Summary of the impact ..................................................................... 163 
11.4.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 163 
11.4.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 164 
11.4.4  The implementation of the project results ............................................ 165 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 166 
11.4.5 
Impacts on end users and wider social effects ...................................... 166 
11.4.6 
11.4.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 167 
11.4.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 167 
11.4.9  Sources ........................................................................................... 168 
FRESHMON and μFCU ................................................................................ 169 
11.5.1  Summary of the impact ..................................................................... 169 
11.5.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 169 
11.5.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 171 
11.5.4  The implementation of the project results ............................................ 174 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 175 
11.5.5 
Impacts on end users and wider social effects ...................................... 176 
11.5.6 
11.5.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 177 
11.5.8  The role of SMEs .............................................................................. 178 
11.5.9  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 178 
11.5.10  Sources ......................................................................................... 179 
BIOSMHARS ............................................................................................. 181 
11.6.1  Summary of the impact ..................................................................... 181 

11.2 

11.3 

11.4 

11.5 

11.6 

4 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.6.2  Overview and strategic context .......................................................... 181 
11.6.3  The implementation of the project ...................................................... 182 
11.6.4  The project results and beneficiaries ................................................... 184 
11.6.5 
Impacts of the project for the partner organisations .............................. 185 
Impacts on end users and wider social effects ...................................... 185 
11.6.6 
11.6.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration ................................................ 186 
11.6.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future .......................... 186 
11.6.9  Sources ........................................................................................... 187 

12.  ANNEX B: FINAL BENEFICIARY SURVEY ................................................................... 188 

13.  ANNEX  C:  INTERVIEW  GUIDE  FOR  HIGH  LEVEL  POLICY  AND  PROGRAMME 

INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................ 198 

14.  ANNEX D: GENERAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CASE STUDIES INTERVIEWS .................. 201 

14.1.1  Core questions ................................................................................. 201 
14.1.2  Additional questions .......................................................................... 201 

15.  ANNEX  E:  CROSS-REFERENCE  BETWEEN  BUILDING  BLOCKS  AND  THE 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS FROM THE TOR ............................................................... 203 

5 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

List of Figures 

Figure 1  Population and response rate ............................................................................. 13 
Figure 2  Distribution across finished projects .................................................................... 13 
Figure 3  Distribution across types of projects ................................................................... 14 
Figure 4  Distribution across types of participant organisations ............................................ 14 
Figure 5 Table stakeholder groups .................................................................................... 15 
Figure 6 List of interviewed organisations .......................................................................... 15 
Figure 7 Case studies and interviewees ............................................................................. 16 
Figure 8 Distribution of projects, by type of support ........................................................... 22 
Figure 9 Overview of projects, by call for proposals ............................................................ 23 
Figure 10 Overview of projects, by priority area ................................................................. 23 
Figure 11 Overview of projects, by thematic area ............................................................... 24 
Figure 12  Average value per project, per priority area of FP7 “Cooperation” Programme ........ 26 
Figure 13 Overview of projects by call – participants and participations ................................ 34 
Figure 14 Overview of projects by thematic area – participants and participations .................. 34 
Figure 15  Distribution of FP7 Space Research and other priority areas by start year .............. 35 
Figure 16  Intervention logic of FP7 Space......................................................................... 37 
Figure 17  Summary of EU initial stakeholder needs ........................................................... 42 
Figure 18  Participants by type ........................................................................................ 47 
Figure 19  Distribution across types of participant organisations .......................................... 48 
Figure 20 Relevance of FP7 Space Research objectives to EU stakeholders’ needs .................. 50 
Figure 21  FP7 Space Research actions responding to EU stakeholders’ needs........................ 51 
Figure 22  Areas and topics per Work Programme .............................................................. 53 
Figure 23 Overview of projects by thematic area - budget ................................................... 54 
Figure 24 GMES – development of cooperation between European Commission and ESA ......... 58 
Figure 25 In the absence of FP7 Space Research support .................................................... 59 
Figure 26 The Programme Committee – Configuration ‘Space’ ............................................. 61 
Figure 27 Number of MS participating in the PC meetings ................................................... 62 
Figure 28 Key National Space Authorities .......................................................................... 64 
Figure 29 DLR and CNES participation in FP7 ..................................................................... 65 
Figure 30 Overview of projects by thematic area and budget ............................................... 68 
Figure 31 Overview of projects by thematic area – participants and participations .................. 69 
Figure 32 Satisfaction of participant organisations with administrative aspects ...................... 71 
Figure 33 Satisfaction of SME participant organisations with administrative aspects ............... 72 
Figure  34  Changes  in  levels  of  satisfaction  with  respect  to  ease  of  fulfilling  administrative 
requirements during the project ....................................................................................... 73 
Figure 35 Satisfaction of participant organisations with implementation aspects ..................... 74 
Figure  36    Are  FP7  Space  Research  actions  more  or  less  effective  than  other  conceivable 
European actions? .......................................................................................................... 76 
Figure 37  Geographical distribution of FP7 space project portfolio (Top 10) .......................... 78 
Figure 38  Countries according to coordination role (all countries) ........................................ 79 
Figure 39  List of top 50 participants in the FP7 space actions – Values ................................. 80 
Figure 40  List of top 52 participants in the FP7 space actions, various rankings .................... 81 
Figure 41  Budget allocated across participants, per type of organisation .............................. 83 
Figure 42  Distribution of projects with more than one partner ............................................ 83 
Figure 43  Number of partners collaborated with before and after FP7 Space Research ........... 84 
Figure 44 – Average number of publications per project with a final report by priority area ..... 84 
Figure 45 Number of publications per project with final report, space and key comparators ..... 85 
Figure 46 – FP7 Space Research: top 20 peer-reviewed journals, by number of publications ... 86 
Figure 47 – FP7 Space: top 20 peer-review journals, by journal impact factor ....................... 86 
Figure 48 Intellectual Property Rights reported in the FP7 Space Research programme ........... 88 
6 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 49 Companies reporting IP applications ................................................................... 88 
Figure 50  Proportion of projects with at least one IPR reported by Thematic Area ................. 89 
Figure 51  Description of IP protection sought by projects ................................................... 89 
Figure 52  Percentage of total SME participations, by priority area (%) ................................. 90 
Figure 53  Projects with SME coordinator and SME participant, by priority area (%) ............... 91 
Figure 54  Projects with SME coordinator and SME participant, by call (%) ............................ 91 
Figure 55 Grant allocation for SME participants .................................................................. 92 
Figure 56 Grant allocation per project according to type of SME participation ........................ 92 
Figure 57  Origin of SME participants ................................................................................ 92 
Figure 58  Gender split among roles in FP7 Space Research projects .................................... 93 
Figure 59  Projects with specific Gender Equality Actions ..................................................... 94 
Figure 60 Achievement of stated objectives ....................................................................... 96 
Figure 61  Projects achieving their objects, by type ............................................................ 97 
Figure 62 Impact of the FP7 Space Research programme on Community objectives ............... 99 
Figure  63    Location  of  participants  (Space):  Total  number  of  participants  per  1  million 
inhabitants .................................................................................................................. 100 
Figure  64    Location  of  participants  (FP7  Space  projects):  Total  number  of  participants  per  1 
million inhabitants ........................................................................................................ 101 
Figure 65  Location of participants (All FP7 projects): Total number of participants per 1 million 
inhabitants .................................................................................................................. 102 
Figure 66 The value that SMEs can bring to FP7 / H2020 projects according to other participants
 ................................................................................................................................. 103 
Figure 67 Potential challenges that may arise from including SMEs in projects according to other 
participants ................................................................................................................. 104 
Figure 68  Impact of FP7 Space Research programme on companies (all sizes) .................... 106 
Figure 69  Impact of FP7 Space research programme (only SMEs) ..................................... 106 
Figure 70  Geoland2 role in the development of the land monitoring service ........................ 131 
Figure 71  Geoland 2 structure ...................................................................................... 133 
Figure 72  AMESD thematic areas and regional centres ..................................................... 135 
Figure 73  Products and Services delivered through Geoland2 ........................................... 136 
Figure 74 Key information on the SAFER project .............................................................. 146 
Figure 75 AGAPAC Project partners ................................................................................ 158 
Figure 76 Key information on the AEROFAST project ........................................................ 164 
Figure 77 Key information on the μFCU project ................................................................ 170 
Figure 78 Key information on the FRESHMON project ....................................................... 170 
Figure 79 BIOSMHARS Work Packages ............................................................................ 184 

7 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Glossary Table 

Acronym 
ASD 
-
Eurospace 
ASI 
CIP 
CNES 
CORDA 

DLR 

EC 
EDA 
ESA 
FP 
GMES 
IPR 
R&D 
REA 
RESPIR 
RTD 
SAG 
SESAM 
SET 
SMEs 
SSF 
TRL 
UKSA 

Full name 

AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) - Eurospace 

Agenzia Spaziale Italiana 
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 
Centre National d'Études Spatiales 
COmmon Research DAta Warehouse 
Forschungszentrum  der  Bundesrepublik  Deutschland  für  Luft-  und  Raumfahrt 
(German Aerospace Center) 
European Commission 
European Defence Agency 
European Space Agency 
Framework Programme 
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 
Intellectual Property Rights 
Research & Development 
Research Executive Agency 
SESAM Research Performance and Impact Reports 
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 
Space Advisory Group 
SED, ESS, ARI, MCA requirements implementation project 
European Strategic Energy Technology Plan 
Small and Medium Enterprises 
Strengthening Space Foundations 
Technology Readiness Level 
UK Space Agency 

8 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  document  outlines  the  Final  Report  in  respect  of  the  evaluation  study:  “Final 
Evaluation of Space Research under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, 
Technological Development and Demonstration”.  

The study has been carried out by Technopolis Group and VVA Consulting on behalf of 
DG Enterprise and Industry during the period 15 January-5 December 2014. 

Study aims 

The  basis  for  the  performance  of  this  assignment  is  provided  by  the  Commission 
Decision on the Seventh Framework Programme1: “Two years following the completion 
of this Framework Programme, the Commission shall carry out an external evaluation 
by independent experts of its rationale, implementation and achievements.” 

The Commission decision thus represents the key rationale for performing this ex-post 
evaluation,  which  has  the  goal  to  evaluate  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Space  research  activities  managed  by  DG 
Enterprise and Industry under FP7 in relation to the relevant overarching political and 
operational  objectives  of  FP7  in  support  of  European  Space  policy  and  EU2020. 
Moreover, the outcomes of the evaluation are meant to support  recommendations for 
improvements  to  the  implementation  of  space  research  programmes  under  Horizon 
2020. 

The  evaluation  takes  into  account  the  objectives  and  priorities  initially  set  for  FP7  in 
general and Space Research in particular, considering also how they evolved in light of 
the policy developments during its implementation period. 

Around  50%  of  the  funding  envelope  for  FP7  Space,  i.e.  ~700M€,  comprised  the  EU 
contribution  to  financing  the  construction  and  launch  of  the  GMES/Copernicus 
infrastructure  (the  Sentinel  satellites  and  ground  infrastructure).  This  work  was 
delegated to ESA and closely linked to the GIO programme (GMES Initial Operations) 
and to the Copernicus operational programme. These activities can only be evaluated 
in  the  context  of  the  Copernicus  programme  and  thus  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of 
the present evaluation. 

The evaluation is structured around six Building Blocks: why, how, what (outputs and 
impacts), European Added Value and Conclusions and Recommendations2. 

1.1 

Structure of the Report 

The Final Report is structured as follows: 

  Section 1 contains the introduction, study aims and structure of the Report  
  Section 2 describes the methodological approach;  
  Section 3 presents an overview of FP7 Space Research; 

1 DECISION No 1982/2006/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 of  18  December  2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for 

research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) 

2  The  study  evaluates  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  complementarity  and  EU  added 
value  of  the  FP7  Space  research  activities.  The  links  between  the  Building  Blocks  and  the  evaluation 
questions (from the Terms of Reference of the study) are presented in Annex E.  

9 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  Section 4 provides Evidence Building Block 1: Rationale (the “why” of Space 

Research under FP7); 

  Section 5 covers Evidence Building Block 2: Implementation (“how” the 

Programme was implemented); 

  Section 6 addresses Evidence Building Block 3: Achievements (“what”) focusing 

on direct achievements (“outputs”); 

  Section 7 focuses on Evidence Building Block 4: Achievements (“what”) – 

looking to the perspective of wider achievements (“results” and “impacts”); 
  Section 8 details Evidence Building Block 5, i.e. the European Added Value; 
  Section 9 presents the answers to the evaluation questions; 
  Section 10 presents the evaluators’ Conclusions and Recommendations; 
  Annexes:  

-  Annex A includes six case study reports; 
-  Annex B includes the Final Beneficiary Survey; 
-  Annex C presents the interview guide for policy and programme 

interviews;  

-  Annex D contains the general interview guide for case study interviews; 
-  Annex E shows the Cross-referencing between Evidence Building Blocks 

and the evaluation questions from the ToR 

10 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

2. 

METHODOLOGY 

This  section  outlines  the  types  of  methodologies  that  were  used  in  order  to  perform 
the evaluation.  

2.1 

Literature review  

The literature review accompanied the overall study, in order to make use of available 
public information, including the main web-based information resources. The research 
focused  on  previous  evaluations  including  at  project  level,  peer  reviews,  expert  and 
advisory group documents, relevant industry reports and reports published by national 
and international agencies as well as statistical data, where available. 

In  terms  of  the  identification  of  objectives,  we  have  reviewed  the  Decision3 
establishing  FP7,  the  seven  Work  Programmes  on  Cooperation  Theme  9  Space 
published  by  the  European  Commission  annually  between  2007  and  2013.  Changes 
and modifications in objectives were taken into account if deemed necessary. In terms 
of  identification  of  the  stakeholders’  needs,  we  have  reviewed  the  Commission 
Communications, the Space Council and other EC documents. We have also taken into 
account  views  expressed  in  the  external  evaluations  of  FP7  and  FP7  Space  Research 
as  well  as  views  produced  by  the  Expert  groups.  Two  editions  of  the  publication  of 
Let’s  Embrace  Space  –  as  well  as  the  follow-up  publications  -  by  the  European 
Commission, listing all projects funded under FP7 Space, were also considered.  

2.2 

Secondary data analysis 

The  study  also  makes  use  of  existing  data  on  projects  and  participants  provided  by 
two main sources of information: 

  CORDA data – updated up to February 2014. These data includes information 

on 257 projects funded up to February 2014, including budgets and participant 
organisations and is the basis for the analysis of this report. 

  CORDA contains a specific module called SESAM Research Performance and 

Impact Reports (RESPIR) – updated up to October 2014 This module combines 
the inputs coming from the project coordinators (inserted in the project final 
report) together with the ones written in the assessment of the Project Officer 
(PO) at the end of the project. 

SESAM takes into account only the following completed projects: 

  where the assessment report has been electronically signed and submitted by 

the Project Officer in the IT tool SESAM; 

  where the final payment is available (previous reporting periods closed) or the 

Financial Officer has finalised the calculation of the final payment. 

3  Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 

development and demonstration activities (2007 -2013) 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

In practice, 101 FP7-Space projects are considered in these statistics as the "reference 
population".  

The following aspects are covered by these statistics: 

Intellectual property rights (IPRs); 

  Assessment of the Project Officer; 
  Publications; 
 
  Dissemination activities; 
  Projects’ workforce and gender of scientific staff; 
  Ethical issues 

Note:  the  study  team  does  not  have  access  to  SESAM  for  all  other  priority  areas, 
hence  when  we  draw  comparisons  with  other  areas  using  the  SESAM  indicators,  we 
rely  on  information  contained  in  the  Sixth  FP7  Monitoring  report  for  all  other  non-
space projects. 

2.3 

Beneficiary survey  

As part of the evaluation, the study team conducted a survey with beneficiaries of the 
FP7 Space Research Programme. The data collection tool was then implemented in the 
online  platform  Survey  Monkey4,  which  allows  distributing  the  survey  to  a  large 
database of contacts via email, track response rates and send reminders to those who 
have not completed the survey yet. 

The  survey  was  sent  out  to  the  scientific  contacts  assigned  to  each  project  by  each 
participant  organisation  (instead  of  only  project  coordinators  (257)  or  unique 
participant  organisations  (1080)),  based  on  CORDA  data  updated  up  to  February 
2014. If a scientific contact was not available in the CORDA database, then the contact 
person  and  email  address  was  used  instead.  Following  this  approach  the  total 
population was made up of 2,049 different contacts. 

Considering  the  availability  of  e-mail  addresses  and  the  number  of  contacts  having 
opted out from Survey Monkey, a total of 1,987 contacts received the survey.  

The survey was launched on May 28th 2014 and remained open until June 20th.  A total 
of  654  responses  were  received.  This  implies  a  response  rate  of  33%  (over  the 
population  that  received  the  link  to  the  survey),  which  represents  a  very  high 
response  rate  compared  to  similar  studies.  The  figure  below  summarises  what  has 
been described in this subsection. 

4 More information available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/ 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 1  Population and response rate 

2,049 

• Population 

1,987 

•  Complete contact details 
•  Exclude those that have 
opted out from Survey 
Monkey or bounced back 

654 

• Final Response rate: 33% 

Source: Technopolis, 2014 

2.3.1 

Overview of respondents 

In  addition  to  a  high  response  rate,  the  survey  also  achieved  a  good  representation 
across the different projects and participant organisations on the FP7 Space research 
programme: 

  The sample includes at least one response from 94.6% of all projects 

supported (243 out of 257). Furthermore, 39% of all project coordinators 
answered the survey (99 out of 257). 

  The sample includes at least one response from 41.5% of all unique 

participant organisations (448 out of 1,080). 

  Furthermore, this high response rate has been accompanied by a good sample 
distribution that closely follows the distribution of projects and participant 
organisations across the population within the FP7 Space research programme. 
Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively show the distribution of the sample and the 
population across the number of completed and on-going projects and the 
distribution across type of projects. 

  The sample distribution across the number of completed projects is identical to 

the distribution of the population.  

Figure 2  Distribution across finished projects 

Source: Technopolis, 2014 

13 

Ongoing Finished 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% All projects Survey Ongoing Finished  
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

 

In terms of project types, we see a slightly lower representation of GMES 
projects and a slightly higher representation of PROTECT projects in the 
sample, but an overall similar distribution. 

Figure 3  Distribution across types of projects 

Source: Technopolis, 2014 

 

In terms of participant organisations, the survey has also achieved a good 
distribution across types of organisations. The sample has a slightly lower 
participation of private companies (PRC) in comparison with the population 
(33% versus 39%) and slightly higher participation of higher education 
institutions (HES) and research centres (REC) in comparison with the 
population (29% versus 25% in both cases). 

Figure 4  Distribution across types of participant organisations 

Source: Technopolis, 2014 

In  sum,  the  survey  had  a  high  response  range  and  a  good  coverage  across  type  of 
projects and participants. 

14 

3% 6% 9% 8% 10% 14% 50% 3% 7% 8% 8% 10% 11% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%  Horizontal and cross-cutting issues  Space Science, Exploration and Data Exploitation  Critical Space Technologies  Space Transportation, Propulsion, Re-entry   Space Technologies  Protection of assets in and from space (PROTECT)   Earth Observation/Copernicus (formerly GMES) All projects Survey 3% 8% 25% 25% 39% 2% 7% 29% 29% 33% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% OTH PUB REC HES PRC Survey All participant organisations  
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

2.4 

High-level interviews 

Figure 5 Table stakeholder groups 

Stakeholder group 
1.EU officials in DG Enterprise and Industry and other services (e.g. REA) 
2.  Relevant  International,  National  or  Regional  Administration  officials  (e.g. 
European Space Agency, European Defence Agency, national space agencies) 
3. Selected representatives from Industry and SMEs (e.g. heads of Eurospace, 
SME4space) 
4.Selected  representatives  from  relevant  committees  and  advisory  groups 
(e.g. Space Advisory Group) 
5. Selected FP7 Space proposals evaluators 
Totals 

Performed  
5 

8 

3 

3 

3 
22 

Overall,  the  study  team  conducted  22  interviews  with  high-level  stakeholders  (not 
including  interviews  performed  to  conduct  the  case  studies)  and  the  list  of  consulted 
organisations is shown in the table below. 

Figure 6 List of interviewed organisations  

Number of  
interviews 

Organisation 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

External evaluator of FP7 proposals 

REA - Research Executive Agency 

DG Enterprise and Industry - Policy and Space Research 

CNES - Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - France 

EDA - European Defence Agency 

ESA - European Space Agency* 

CDTI - Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology 

SME4SPACE 

AIPAS - Associazione Italiana PMI per l'Aerospazio 

ASD - Eurospace 

EARSC - European Association of Remote Sensing Companies 

University of Liège     

ASCR Technology centre in Czech Republic 

UKSA - UK Space Agency  

SSU  -  European  Space  Sciences  Committee  Space  Sciences  Unit  –  European  Science 
Foundation 

DLR - The German Aerospace Centre 

 

*Written response to the questions from the interview guide were provided 

A questionnaire was developed to cover all evaluation questions to be  asked through 
policy and programme level interviews. The questionnaire is presented in Annex C of 
this report.  

2.5 

Case studies 

The  FP7  Space  research  programme  comprises  a  set  of  activities  that  are  rather 
diverse  and  pose  a  challenge  for  any  overarching  evaluation.  On  the  one  hand  the 
analytical  framework  needs  to  be  able  to  assess  contributions  to  the  design  and 
implementation  of  operational  services  (e.g.  GMES/  Copernicus).  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  it  has  to  able  to  assess  the  progress  in  our  understanding  of  the  world 

15 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

through space science (e.g. microgravity studies on the International Space Station). 
Along  with  its  support  for  satellite  operations  and  science,  the  programme  is  also 
concerned  with  maximising  the  flow  of  know-how  and  technology  from  space 
exploration and more generally to support the technological competitiveness of the EU 
space industry, while also playing a positive role in sustaining / building international 
relations.  Given  this  situation,  the  practical  solution  to  assessing  a  wide  range  of 
topics covered by the FP7 Space research was to segment the programme around its 
activities and conduct a series of case studies.  

The  objective  of  the  impact  case  studies  was  to  provide  in-depth  information  at  the 
project  level  of  the  impacts  of  FP7  Space  research.  The  case  studies  cover  all 
evaluation  questions,  but  their  focus  is  to  identify  impacts  (and  drivers  of  impacts) 
whether  intended  or  unintended,  and  analyse  the  sustainability  of  FP7  funded 
activities. The final selection of projects and topics for the case studies is listed below.  

1.  Geoland2 and the contribution of FP7 to the land monitoring service of Copernicus; 

2.  SAFER and its contribution to the emergency management service; 

3.  The AGAPAC project with a focus on the development of technologies critical for EU 

non-dependence in space; 

4.  AEROFAST  as  a  project  on  the  development  of  space-based  applications  that  are 

more cost-effective for the end user; 

5.  µFCU as well as FRESHMON, with a focus on the involvement of SMEs and impact 

of SMEs on project outcomes; 

6.  BIOSMHARS  with  a  focus  on  projects  that  have  brought  together  partners  from 
different  disciplines  and  that  have  successfully  exploited  the  benefits  of 
international collaboration. 

The case studies directly feed the analysis in Sections 4 to 8, and detailed case study 
reports are included in Annex A. The case studies involved two data gathering steps: 

  Step 1: Desk research: work started with an in-depth review of documents 

relating to the projects included in each of the six case studies. This included 
the application, monitoring and evaluation reports, if available.  

  Step 2: Interviews: the second step of the case study work was to undertake a 
series of in-depth interviews with projects included in each of the cases. A total 
of 24 interviews was performed, as shown in the table below. In some cases, 
the panel of interviewees was limited by the lack of availability by project 
participants. Nevertheless, each case study considered the views of at least 
three project participants. The detail of respondents to each case study is 
provided in the case study reports (Annex A). 

 

Figure 7 Case studies and interviewees 

Case study 

SAFER 
Geoland2 
AGAPAC 
AEROFAST 
µFCU and  FRESHMON 
BIOSMHARS 
Total 

Number of 
interviewees 
5 
6 
3 
3 
4 
3 
24 

16 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

3. 

FP7 SPACE RESEARCH 

3.1 

Background 

3.1.1 

Policy context and legislative framework 

As  mentioned  above,  space  systems  and  space-based  technologies  and  applications 
are of strategic importance to the EU. Investment in space is not only relevant for the 
development of specific services, such as Copernicus and Galileo, but also to positively 
impact  EU  citizens  and  their  businesses.  The  development  of  space  systems  and 
technologies is expected to contribute to the implementation of a wide range of policy 
objectives, including: 

  Europe 2020, through better opportunities for space-related – but also “space 

enabled” – industries; 

  Sustainable Development, (e.g. through information gathering in support of the 
Kyoto Protocol monitoring and the actions resulting from the Johannesburg 
Summit on sustainable development, taking into account also the “Lisbon 
Declaration on GMES and Africa”; 

  European non-dependency – allowing the EU to develop critical infrastructure 
(e.g. Copernicus satellite technology) and industry (e.g. PRS receivers for 
Galileo) know-how to ensure European non-dependency on other Space actors 
(USA, Russia, etc.); 

  Common Foreign and Security Policy (e.g. in support of borders control, conflict 

prevention and crisis management, continuity of public services, etc.). 

The Treaty of Lisbon entered into force  On 1 December 2009, attributing to the EU a 
stronger  role  in  space  matters.  The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  introduced  for  the  first  time  a 
specific  space  competence  for  the  European  Union,  indicating  space  policy  as  an  EU 
policy in its own right.  

In  particular,  the  intervention  logic  for  FP7  Space  Research  was  strengthened  in  the 
Treaty  by  Title  XIX  “Research  and  technological  development  and  space”.  The  most 
relevant articles are the following: 

  Article 189 states that the EU should draw up a European space policy to 

promote scientific and technical progress as well as industrial competitiveness, 
by promoting joint initiatives, support research and technological development;  

  Article 179 provides a basis for EU intervention in the area of research and 

innovation by stating that the EU shall have the objective of strengthening its 
scientific and technological bases by encouraging research to become more 
competitive, including in its industry; 

  Article 180 states that in pursuing these objectives, the EU shall focus on: 

implementing RTD programmes, by promoting cooperation with and between 
undertakings, research centres and universities; promoting cooperation with 
third countries and international organisations in the field of RTD; 
disseminating and optimising the results of RTD and stimulating training and 
mobility of researchers in the EU; 

  Article 186 indicates that the EU may make provision for cooperation with 
third countries or international organisations in research, technological 
development and demonstration. 

17 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

In April 2011, the European Commission issued the Communication “Towards a space 
strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens”5. The Communication clearly 
positions space within Europe 2020, stating that “the space sector directly contributes 
to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy,  namely  smart,  sustainable 
and inclusive growth. Space policy thus forms an integral part of the "Industrial Policy" 
flagship initiative.” 

The  Communication  sets  out  the  key  priorities  for  the  EU  space  policy,  including 
ensuring  the  success  of  the  EU's  two  flagship  space  programmes,  Galileo  and 
Copernicus.  The  fifth  Space  Council  meeting  identified  further  priorities,  as  climate 
change,  security,  competitiveness  and  space  exploration  have  been  reaffirmed  as 
priority areas. Moreover, the Communication calls for the development of an industrial 
space  policy  in  close  cooperation  with  EU  Member  States  and  the  European  Space 
Agency. 

On  28  February  2013,  the  Commission  issued  a  Communication  on  the  "EU  Space 
Industrial  Policy:  Releasing  the  Potential  for  Growth  in  the  Space  Sector"6.  The 
Communication  proposes  actions  to  increase  industry's  skills  levels,  support  R&D,  to 
ensure the EU's independence in space, to make finance and investment more readily 
available, and to improve the EU's legislative framework. The Communication also sets 
the objectives for Horizon 2020. 

3.1.2 

The Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7) 2007 - 2013 

Investing in research and technology development (RTD) is an essential enabler of the 
effective  functioning  of  knowledge  economies,  and  is  of  paramount  importance  in 
strengthening the EU’s competitiveness. 

The  reinforcement  of  investments  in  R&D  represented  a  key  goal  of  the  Lisbon 
Strategy  for  Growth  and  Jobs,  which  defined  R&D  and  innovation  as  crucial  areas  to 
prepare  the  EU  for  globalisation  and  ageing  and  enhancing  the  EU's  prosperity7.  The 
importance  of  investing  in  R&D  was  confirmed  and  highlighted  in  the  Europe  2020 
strategy,  which  proposes  as  a  headline  target  that  “3%  of  the  EU's  GDP  should  be 
invested  in  R&D”.  To  achieve  this  target,  Europe  2020  establishes  the  Flagship 
Initiative  “Innovation  Union”,  in  which  the  European  Commission  commits  itself, 
among others, to:  

“Strengthen and further develop the role of EU instruments to support innovation (e.g. 
structural funds, rural development funds, R&D framework programme, CIP, SET plan) 
…”8 

In  this  framework,  the  EU’s  multi-annual  RTD  Framework  Programmes  represent  the 
main  instrument  for  funding  and  supporting  research  and  investment.  They  provide 
funding  support  to  promote  the  achievement  of  the  following  objectives  (now  at  the 
core of Horizon 2020): 

5 Brussels, 4.4.2011,  COM(2011)152 final 
6 Brussels, 28.2.2013 COM(2013) 108 final 
7 Brussels, 2.2.2010 SEC(2010) 114 final, COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT, Lisbon Strategy evaluation 

document 

8 Brussels, 3.3.2010 COM(2010) 2020 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, EUROPE 2020 A strategy 

for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 

18 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  Strengthening the EU’s position in science, in order to support top level 

research in Europe; 

  Reinforcing industrial leadership in innovation, including major investment in 

key technologies, greater access to capital and support for SMEs. 
  Helping to address major concerns such as climate change, developing 

sustainable transport and mobility, making renewable energy more affordable, 
ensuring food safety and security, or coping with the challenge of an ageing 
population. 

In  particular,  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research  for  the  years  2007  -
2013 had a budget of €50.5 billion, which represented a significant increase (41% at 
2004  prices,  63%  at  2007  prices)  compared  with  the  previous  Programme.  FP7 
included four programmes:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Cooperation - Collaborative research  

Ideas - European Research Council  

People - Human Potential, Marie Curie actions and  

Capacities - Research capacities, 

The  EU  space  research  is  being  financed  through  the  Cooperation  Programme 
Theme  9.  Research  funding  was  provided  mainly  through  two  different  instruments, 
collaborative projects (CPs) and coordination and support actions (CSAs)9:  

  Collaborative Projects (CPs) – Support for research projects carried out by 

consortia with participants from different countries, aiming at developing new 
knowledge, new technology, products, demonstration activities or common 
resources for research; 

  Coordination and support actions (CSAs) – Support for activities aimed at 
coordinating or supporting research activities and policies (networking, 
exchanges, trans-national access to research infrastructures, studies, 
conferences, etc.). 

3.1.3 

Space Research in the Seventh Framework Programme 

The  space  sector  represents  a  priority  for  Europe  since  the  creation  of  ESA  in  1964. 
From upstream to downstream, the space sector is seen as having a strong impact on 
the  economy,  embracing  activities  that  range  from  satellite  launches  and  space 
exploration to space-based applications resulting in new products and services. Thus, 
fuelling  scientific  research  and  space  activities  and  their  applications  is  of  strategic 
importance.  Space  research  is  fundamental  to  ensure  that  EU  space  policy  continues 
to  evolve,  eventually  resulting  in  benefits  for  the  whole  society  and  in  improved 
competitiveness for the EU10. 

FP7  had  a  budget  of  €1,430 million  allocated  for  space-related  projects.  This 
includes circa €700 million for the development of GMES infrastructure. 

9 Source: CORDIS website 
10 Source: DG Enterprise and industry website 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

According  to  the  FP7  funding  mechanism,  the  financial  resources  allocated  by 
beneficiaries  of  Space  research  projects  were  supplemented  by  the  co-financing 
provided by the EU.  

A  total  of  €662  million  have  been  allocated  through  FP7  Space  calls  for 
proposals, which have supported a total of 262 space-related projects: 19 in the 1st 
call, 27 in the 2nd call, 77 in the 3rd call, 33 in the 4th call, 50 in the 5th call and 56 
in  the  6th  call.  The  ESA  received  a  specific  grant  of  approximately  700  million  euro 
from  the  Copernicus  budget  of  FP7  to  support  the  GMES  Space  Component 
programme (GSC) to develop observation satellites: the Sentinels. 

A number of thematic priorities related to GMES/Copernicus and its applications were 
supported already in FP6, areas including Aeronautics and Space, Information Society 
Technologies and Research Networking, and the GMES Services Element funds of ESA. 

The general goal of the Space theme under FP7 was to achieve benefits for citizens 
and  for  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  space  industry.  The  objective  has  been 
pursued by focusing on priority applications and on the development of new concepts 
in space transportation and space technologies. An additional objective was to reduce 
the  vulnerability  of  space-based  systems  and  services.  In  detail,  resource  and 
development activities were funded in order to11: 

  Develop space-based applications at the service of the European Society, in 

particular 'Copernicus' - (formerly GMES); 

  Strengthen space 'foundations' - space science and exploration, space 

transportation and space technology, taking into account synergies with 
initiatives of the European Space Agency (ESA) and other European, national or 
regional entities; 

  Support cooperation with specific countries (including Russia, Ukraine, China or 

African countries) and support research to benefit Small and Medium 
Enterprises (SMEs) and develop studies in certain policy areas (so-called 
"cross-cutting activities"). 

More specific objectives include: 

  The development and validation of pre-operational GMES services, starting with 

 

the Fast Track Services; 
Integrating Earth Observation with SatCom and SatNav technologies 
(especially for prevention and management of emergencies); 

  Supporting the coordinated provision of data (space and in -situ) for related 

projects in FP7; 

  The development of dedicated space infrastructures for GMES (under the 

management of the European Space Agency “ ESA”); 
  Support to research in space science and exploration; 
  Developing new concepts in space transportation, space technologies and 

critical components (to promote the strategic objective of non-dependence). 

11 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/research/fp7/  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

3.1.4 

FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: Space 

The  objectives  of  FP7  Space  Research  were  included  in  the  Decision  establishing  the 
overall FP7 programme for the 2007-2013 period12: 

“Supporting a European Space Programme focusing on applications such as 
GMES  with  benefits  for  citizens  and  for  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European  space  industry.  This  will  contribute  to  the  development  of  a 
European  space  policy,  complementing  efforts  by  Member  States  and  by 
other key players, including the European Space Agency (ESA)”. 

In  other  words,  FP7  Space  Research  is  a  mean  to  “support  a  European  Space 
Programme”  with  benefits  for  citizens  and  for  the  competitiveness  of  the  European 
space industry”.  

Each annual Space Work Programme is supported by an action plan based around the 
principles  set  out  in  the  2007  European  Space  Policy.  The  European  Commission  has 
published seven Space Work Programmes, which have outlined what the priorities for 
funding are in a specific year.  

The programme has had six calls for proposals under three priority areas: 

  SPA1 - Space-based applications at the service of the European Society; 
  SPA2 - Strengthening the foundations of Space science and technology; 
  SPA3 - Cross-cutting activities. 

3.2 

Overview of projects 

3.2.1 

Projects and value 

The  evaluation  covers  a  sample  of  257  projects  (out  of  the  total  of  262)  co-funded 
by the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme  from its first call in 2007 to the last call for 
proposals, launched in 201313.  

The  programme  has  mainly  (96%  of  projects  and  88%  of  budget)  funded 
collaborative research projects and only a small percentage of the projects funded 
(4%  projects  and  12%  budget)  were  dedicated  to  coordination  actions  (CSA-CA  and 
CSA-SA).  

12Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for  research,  technological 
development 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:412:0001:0041:EN:PDF 

demonstration 

(2007-2013) 

available 

activities 

and 

at: 

13 As mentioned before, this is based on a cut-off point set in February 2014, when this analysis took place. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 8 Distribution of projects, by type of support 

42% 

46% 

45% 

35% 

CP-FP

CP

CSA-SA

2% 

7% 

CP-FP-SICA

1% 

6% 

CSA-CA

2% 

5% 

CP-CSA

1% 

7% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

as % of total EC contribution

as % of number of projects

Legend 

CP-CSA 

Combined  Collaborative  Project  (Large-scale 
Coordination and Support Action 

integrating  project)  and 

CP-FP 

Small or medium-scale focused research project 

CP-FP-SICA 

Small  or  medium-scale  focused  research  project  for  specific  cooperation 
actions dedicated to international cooperation partner countries (SICA) 

CSA-CA 

CSA-SA 

Coordination and support action /Coordinating action 

Coordination and support action / Support action 

CP 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Collaborative project (generic) 

By February 2014 (date of data extraction from the CORDA database), a total budget 
of €651 million had been allocated to the 257 projects, which have been supported 
by €276 million contribution from project participants (Figure 9, Column B-E).  

Projects have had an average total cost of €3.6 million (see Figure 4) and the average 
EC  contribution  to  each  project  has  been  €2.5  million,  i.e.  70%  of  the  total  average 
value  of  the  projects.  This  percentage  is  very  similar  across  all  FP7  Space  Research 
projects (Figure 9, Column F-G).  

The description of the topics covered in each call for proposals is shown in Section 4.3. 

Looking  at  the  distribution  of  projects  per  priority  area  (Figure  10)  we  find  that  a 
large  share  of  the  projects  has  been  funded  under  the  priority  area  “SPA2  - 
Strengthening  the  foundations  of  Space  science  and  technology”  (46%), 
which includes projects related to space technologies, protection of assets in space, as 
well as space exploration and transportation. 

Budget  wise,  more  than  half  of  budget  (54%)  has  actually  been  allocated  to 
“SPA1  -  Space-based  applications  at  the  service  of  the  European  Society”. 
This  is  because  this  priority  area  includes  some  large-scale  GMES  projects  such  as 

22 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

MYOCEAN,  SAFER,  GEOLAND2,  with  budgets  that  ranged  from  €30  million  to 
€50million, which were funded through the first call for proposals in 2007. 

Figure 9 Overview of projects, by call for proposals 

Total 
project 
cost 

EC Total Contribution 

Numb
er  of 
projec
ts 

Call 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

Average 
value 
per 
project 

Average  EC 
Contribution 
per project 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

(in '000 EUR) 

EC 
contribution 
as 
percentage 
of 
budget 

total 

a 

[E] 

[F] 

[G] 

Allocation  of 
budget  across 
calls 
(Percentage) 

[D] 

[A] 

[B] 

[C] 

FP7-SPACE-
2007-1 

FP7-SPACE-
2009-1 

FP7-SPACE-
2010-1 

FP7-SPACE-
2011-1 

FP7-SPACE-
2012-1 

FP7-SPACE-
2013-1 

19 

210,501 

141,943 

22% 

67% 

11,079 

7,471 

27 

78,810 

54,625 

8% 

69% 

2,919 

2,023 

77 

167,617 

121,814 

19% 

73% 

2,177 

1,582 

33 

153,291 

107,309 

16% 

70% 

4,645 

3,252 

50 

128,349 

92,280 

14% 

72% 

2,567 

1,846 

51 

188,548 

133,264 

20% 

71% 

3,697 

2,613 

Total 

257 

927,115  651,235 

100% 

70% 

3,607 

2,534 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Figure 10 Overview of projects, by priority area 

Priority area 

Numb
er  of 
proje
cts 

Total 
project 
cost 

EC Total Contribution 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

Allocation  of 
budget 
across  calls 
(Percentage) 

EC 
contribution 
as  a  %  of 
total budget 

Average 
value  per 
project 

Average  EC 
Contribution 
per project 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

[A] 

[B] 

[C] 

[D] 

[E] 

[F] 

[G] 

SPA1 - Space-
based 
applications at 
the service of 
the European 
Society 

SPA2 - 
Strengthening 
the foundations 
of Space 
science and 
technology 

SPA3 - Cross-
cutting 
activities 

87 

510,374 

350,865 

54% 

69% 

5,866 

4,033 

119 

335,405 

239,378 

37% 

71% 

2,819 

2,012 

48 

70,186 

52,636 

8% 

75% 

1,462 

1,097 

Other 

3 

11,150 

8,356 

1% 

75% 

3,717 

2,785 

Total 

257 

927,115  651,235 

100% 

70% 

3,607 

2,534 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

23 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

A closer look at thematic areas shows that 57% of the budget has been allocated 
to  GMES  projects.  The  study  team  classified  the  257  projects  according  to  the 
thematic  areas  of  interest  in  order  to  look  at  the  allocation  of  budget  and  activity 
around each of these thematic areas. This classification was done in collaboration with 
the  Space  Policy  and  Research  unit  of  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry,  which  provided 
recommendations on how to group those projects so that they are consistent with the 
classification  that  will  be  implemented  for  Horizon  2020.  Seven  thematic  areas  have 
been identified: 

  Earth Observation/ Copernicus (formerly GMES) 
  Space Technologies 
  Protection of assets in and from space (PROTECT) 
  Critical Space Technologies 
  Space Science, Exploration and Data Exploitation 
  Space Transportation, Propulsion, Re-entry 
  Horizontal and cross-cutting issues 

An overview of projects by thematic area is shown in Figure 11 below.  

Figure 11 Overview of projects, by thematic area  

Thematic area 

Number 
of 
projects 

Total 
project 
cost 

EC Total Contribution 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

Allocation  of 
budget 
across  calls 
(Percentage) 

[A] 

[B] 

[C] 

[D] 

Average 
value 
per 
project 

Average  EC 
Contribution 
per project 

(in  '000 
EUR) 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

[A] 

[B] 

EC 
contribution 
as 
a 
percentage 
of 
total 
budget 
[E] 

29 

33 

35 

106 

54,385 

90,902 

66,445 

91,610 

79,163 

534,508 

369,211 

Earth 
Observation/ 
Copernicus 
(formerly 
GMES) 
Space 
Technologies 
Critical  Space 
Technologies 
Protection 
of 
assets  in  and 
from 
space 
(PROTECT) 
Space 
Transportation, 
Propulsion, Re-
entry 
Space  Science, 
Exploration 
and 
Exploitation 
Horizontal  and 
cross-cutting 
issues 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

64,662 

58,723 

41,046 

48,040 

63,315 

7,447 

8,895 

Data 

257 

23 

22 

9 

57% 

10% 

8% 

10% 

6% 

7% 

1% 

927,115  651,235  100% 

69% 

5,043 

3,483 

73% 

69% 

2,617 

1,898 

2,730 

1,875 

71% 

2,755 

1,959 

70% 

2,553 

1,785 

76% 

2,878 

2,184 

84% 

988 

827 

70% 

3,607 

2,534 

As mentioned previously, developments on GMES services include large-scale projects 
with multiple partners, such as: 

  G-MOSAIC: GMES services for Management of Operations, Situation Awareness 

and Intelligence for regional Crises; 

24 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  ERA-CLIM2: European Reanalysis of Global Climate Observations; 
  MACC and MACC II: Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate, 

designed to meet the requirements to prototype operational GMES services for 
the atmospheric domain; 

  GEOLAND2: Project that is working towards the implementation of the GMES 

Land Monitoring Core Service (LMCS); 

  SAFER: Project that aims at implementing preoperational versions of the 

Emergency Response Core Service; 

  MYOCEAN and MYOCEAN2: Projects that look at the prototype, development 
and pre-operational validation of the Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting 
component of the GMES Marine Service. 

If we exclude those eight projects (whose total values were €15 million or more) the 
average  value  of  GMES  projects  drops  to  €3million,  which  is  closer  to  the  average 
value of projects classified under other thematic areas.  

Another broad category of projects includes those related to the development of space 
technologies  (structures,  satellites,  sensors,  detectors,  and  ICT  applications), 
protection  of  space  assets  (including  In-space  Propulsion/Power,  Re-entry  test 
analysis,  models,  and  technologies).  These  elements  have  been  classified  under  the 
following four categories: 

  Space Technologies; 
  Critical Space Technologies; 
  Protection of assets in and from space (PROTECT);  
  Space Transportation, Propulsion, Re-entry. 

A total of 120 projects have been funded across these four categories (47%) and 36% 
of the total EC contribution to the “Fp7 Space actions” has been allocated to them. 

Finally,  the  more  scientific  element  of  the  programme,  “Space  Science,  Exploration 
and  Data  Exploitation”,  has  funded  22  projects  that  account  for  only  7%  of  the  total 
EC contribution to the “Fp7 Space actions” and for 8.6% of total number of projects. 

Looking  at  ‘Horizontal  and  cross-cutting  issues”,  nine  projects  (representing  3.5%  of 
the total number of projects) had an EC contribution of €7.4million, which represents 
roughly 1% of the total EU contribution. These projects have included the analysis of 
cooperation  opportunities  for  Europe  in  future  space  exploration  programmes 
(COFSEP),  space  research  road-mapping  and  space  policy  (SPACEPLAN  2020,  C-
SPACE), building awareness and inspiring young people (EU-UNAWE, ODYSSEUS) and 
coordination initiatives (NORDICBALTSAT, COSMOS/COSMOS+). 

Projects under “Fp7 Space research actions” seem to be of relatively small scale as the 
average value of the projects (€2.5 million) is relatively low in comparison with other 
priority  areas  within  the  FP7  “Cooperation”  Programme,  and  only  higher  than  the 
average  value  per  project  in  the  area  of  ‘socio-economic  sciences  and  humanities’. 
Relevant  comparator  areas  such  as  Energy  and  Security  tend  to  fund  larger  projects 
with budgets of €7.9 million and €5.8 million on average, respectively (see Figure 12). 

25 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure  12    Average  value  per  project,  per  priority  area  of  FP7  “Cooperation” 
Programme 

Energy

Health

Nanosciences, nanotechnologies… 

Security

Transport (including aeronautics)

Food, agriculture, and biotechnology

Information and communication tech.

Environment (including climate change)

Space

Socio-economic sciences and humanities

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0

Average value per project (in EUR millions) 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

3.2.2 

Findings from the case studies 

To take conclusions on the Programme effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value, a 
case study methodology was adopted with six impact case studies to address different 
areas of FP7 Space research, by looking to individual projects (see Section 2.5). 

The key findings of the case studies are summarised in the case study sheets below. 
Additional details are provided in Annex A. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

SAFER (Services and Applications For Emergency Response) 

Summary of the impact  
Reinforcement of European (geo)information capacities to respond to emergency situations 
Building  of  the  production  lines  and  delivery  mechanism  of  the  current  Emergency  Response  satellite 
information service 
Thematic  products  (for  Civil  Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid)  domains  delivered  during  “normal”  and  rapid 
response conditions. 

The project  
The objective was to implement and to validate a pre-operational version of the GMES Emergency Response 
Service, reinforcing the European capacity to respond to emergency crisis situations.  
One  block  of  activities  was  related  to  the  emergency  response  service  providing  mapping  products  in  the 
immediate aftermath of a crisis based both on demonstration projects and real crisis events (e.g. earthquake 
in Haiti) 
The  second  priority  was  to  extend  services  covering  longer  periods  before  and  after  the  crisis,  through  the 
provision of thematic products, to be added in the portfolio of services for prevention or recovery of disasters.  
A specific block of activities related to the user support, validation, dissemination and feedback. 

Key implementation obstacles  
Large  consortium  of  more  than  50 
partners 
Confusion between the purposes of the 
SAFER  and  LINKer  projects  being 
implemented  in  parallel  but  funded 
under different rules and procedures 
Delays  in  the  delivery of  data  products 
influenced  user  perceptions  as  to  their 
usefulness and usability 

Problem solving practices 
Good and effective coordination of the project linked to a good will 
to  collaborate  and  good  team  spirit  (also  related  to  the  societal 
purpose of the project) 
Different  (number  of)  partners  across  the  three  main  phases  of 
work allowing activities to run in parallel 
Discussions  between  the  stakeholders  allowing  both  projects  to 
mutually support each other and be complementary 
Specific  procedures  put  in  place  over  time  to  reduce  the  delivery 
time and improve user satisfaction 

The results 
The Emergency Response Service products were made available in both rush and non-rush mode for European 
Civil protection agencies and humanitarian actors.  
The  Emergency  Support  Service  provided  reference  products  and  situation  maps.  These  geo-information 
products were specifically dedicated to the preparedness and recovery phases of the crisis.  
There  was  a  progressive  increase  in  the  quality  and  user  take  up  levels  over  time  in  SAFER,  with  about  50 
activations per annum by the final year of the research project.  
The service was operational and the maximum timeframe for delivering reference maps (6 hours), delineation 
and grading maps (24 hours) under the service agreement was achieved at the end of the project. One key 
output of the project relates to the development of standard products and procedures.  

The implementation of results  
The  lessons  learned  have  been  taken  into  account  in  designing  operational  services  under  the  GIO  (and 
Copernicus).  

The innovation effects on partners 
The impacts for the partner organisations are deemed generally positive, even if not all partners were selected 
to implement the GIO-ERS (and did not have the expected return on investment (project co-funding) and had 
to reduce personnel in this specific area).  
The coordinating institution was able to develop procedures to increase the performance of data provision in 
reactive situations, which are reused internally in the framework of many reactive services; however, it had to 
reduce the staff dedicated to rapid mapping because of the non-selection of its consortium for the GIO-ERS. 
A research organisation has gained its ISO9001 certification for the production and publication within six hours 
of crisis geo-information for civil protection agencies.  
A  SME  participating  in  the  SAFER  follow-up  GIO-EMS  activities  also  faced  a  reduction  in  staff  in  emergency 
services, which is claimed to be due to the low level of budget for the operations, compared to the high level 
of resources devoted to research activities. In spite of this, overall, thanks to SAFER, the company gained a lot 
of experience, which opened new opportunities. 
Overall  all  partners  interviewed  maintained  partnerships  with  some  SAFER  partners,  which  they  usually 
already  cooperated  with  prior  to  SAFER.  Some  organisations  gained  new  contacts  with  users,  which  they 
exploited further at the end of the project. 

Impacts and wider social effects  
The  project  allowed  developing  a  common  language  with  the  user  community  (mainly  national  and 
international public organisations and NGOs) resulting in the development of the portfolio of services and clear 
procedures  for  activation,  which  was  taken  over  by  the  GIO-EMS.  Public  authorities  have  acquired  a  better 
knowledge of the capabilities of the satellite data products. 
The emergency response core service has been expanded, enabling better crisis management before, during 
and  after  emergencies  often  related  to  global  climate  change.  This  supports  the  achievement  of  the  overall 
goal of the GMES ERS, which is, beyond consolidating an operational service, to provide a better quality of life 
and  increased  safety  to  European  citizens  and  vulnerable  population  worldwide.  Through  the  information 
provided by SAFER the EU could source its own information of crises.  

27 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The added value of FP7 
Because of its European dimension and the need for data which is consistent and comparable, it would have 
been  unrealistic  to  set  up  such  a  pre-operational  service  at  the  national  level,  whereas  many  emergencies 
affect  cross-border  areas,  and  necessitate  a  multilateral  response  from  different  actors  across  a  number  of 
Member  States.  In  addition  there  were  scale  benefits  in  developing  a  24/7/365  service  on  an  EU-wide  basis 
stemming from resources being used to benefit the different civil protection agencies.  
The  project  could  have  been  financed  through  other  EU  funding  frameworks  (e.g.  through  ESA/EC  cost-
sharing). The FP7 funding had an influence on the structure and content of the project organised around two 
strands  of  activities  (operational  work  for  emergency  response  activities  and  research  work  for  the 
development  of  thematic  products).  The  financing  of  SAFER  through  FP7  also  allowed  the  EC  to  shape  the 
project and have primary access to the project results in order to prepare for the operational phase. 

geoland2 

Summary of the impact  
Provision of reliable and comparable environmental monitoring data produced on a frequent basis 
Production,  validation  and  demonstration  of  operational  processing  lines  for  the  Global  Monitoring  for 
Environment and Security (GMES) 

The project  
The  objective  of  the  geoland2  was  to  develop  and  demonstrate  a  series  of  European  geo-information  services 
showing promising levels of reliability, affordability and cost efficiency 
geoland2 was made up of two layers:  

 

 

The Core Mapping Services provided land cover, land use and land cover change, as well as a range of 
bio-physical parameters as an input to more elaborated products; and 
The Core Information Services offered specific information for European Environmental Policies and 
international treaties on Climate Change, food security and the sustainable development of Africa 

Key implementation obstacles  

Problem solving practices 

  Delay between selection and 
kick-off longer than expected 
by partners (12 months in 
total) 
Large consortium, partners 
not always aware of the 
overall progress of the 
project 

 

  Work commitment of the project coordinator supported by a 

 

 

small team on full-time basis 
Number of sub-projects run in parallel under two main layers: 
core mapping services and core information services, each 
project had a leader who was directly liaising with the project 
coordinator. This approach allowed effective management of 
the project composed of a large number of partners. 
Annual conferences bringing together project partners allowing 
partners to discuss the progress  

The results 
The  main  achievement  was  the  successful completion  of  the  work  and  its  impact on  operational  services which 
are currently being implemented under Copernicus  
geoland2  provided  means  to  collect  reliable  and  comparable  data  with  a  set  of  common  definitions  and  one 
methodology used across many countries  
Production  system  prototype,  including  both  an  integrated  software  /  hardware  environment  and  an  adequate 
organisational layout  

The implementation of results  
The national authorities were provided with means and data that enabled them in implementing their daily duties 
deriving from inter alia European legislation 

The innovation effects on partners 
Following a call for tenders, five consortia involving only some partners of geoland2 secured their involvement in 
Copernicus in five lots out of six available. 
Geoland2  established  a  vast  network  of  European  institutions,  national  authorities,  and  private  companies 
including SMEs. This project allowed partners from various disciplines to work together across different countries.  
Geoland2 helped to establish partnerships between public and private entities. 

Impacts and wider social effects  
Service  specifications  including  service  evolution  in  terms  of  evolving  thematic  content  for  both  core  mapping 
services and core information services  

The added value of FP7 
Additional funding made available through FP7 enabled partners to go ahead with the project without reduction in 
scope  
The  added  value  of  the  project  was  to  bring  together  partner  organisations  from  around  Europe  from  different 
disciplines  

28 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

AGAPAC 

Summary of the impact  
The  AGAPAC  project  developed  25  high-power  amplifier  packages  meeting  ESA  requirements  for  air-tight 
packages. Additionally, up to 65% added power efficiency was obtained using diamond silver base plate material. 
AGAPAC presented space technologies with a viable and commercial packaging that not only enhances Europe's 
satellite  technology,  but  also  enables  Europe  to  maintain  a  strong  position  in  the  extremely  competitive  space 
industry. 

The project  
AGAPAC  core  objective  was  to  establish  a  space  compatible  European  supply  chain  for  packaging  solutions  to 
cover the need for GaN-based (High-Power Amplifier)s for space applications. Detailed project objectives: 

 

 

extend beyond state-of-the-art for high thermal dissipation composites using materials based on 
diamond solutions as well as on carbon nano-fibres, compatible with hybrid micro-package 
manufacturing technologies; and 
develop a space compatible power hybrid able to withstand up to 150W of RF power in L band, with 
minimal junction temperature elevation.  

of 

production 

Key implementation obstacles  
One  project  partner  decided  to  discontinue 
commercial 
diamond 
composite  
Need  to  secure  an  alternative  material  or 
alternative manufacturer  
One partner has taken a leading role in helping 
to  secure  supply  which  differed 
its 
involvement specified in the proposal 

from 

the 

Problem solving practices 
Even  though  the project partner  responsible  for development 
of  diamond  composite  decided  to  stop  commercial  sales,  the 
partner also decided to continue participation in AGAPAC and 
still  maintains  the  patent  portfolio  for  possible  licensing  and 
transfer options 
Partners  were  equally  on  board  and  engaged  throughout 
different project phases 
Flexibility of project partners 

The results 
A  fully  European  supply  chain  was  developed  in  the  framework  of  AGAPAC  project  to  provide  with  a  space 
compatible  solution  for  very  high  power  applications,  including  the  use  of  very  promising  wide  band  gap 
technology with ten times higher power density capability. 
Development of a package, able to meet the requirements in matter of dissipative performance while keeping a 
level of reliability compatible with telecommunication satellite. 

The implementation of results  
The  results  obtained  by  the  AGAPAC  consortium  were  presented  at  the  main  event  in  the  field  in  Europe 
(European microwave conference in Amsterdam in October 2012) and in North America (international microwave 
symposium in Montreal Canada in June 2012). 

The innovation effects on partners 
Since the start of the project, one women engineer who participated in the AGAPAC proposal, was hired at Thales 
Alenia Space in a permanent position. 
CNES purchased new equipment to be able to characterise developed materials. 3D X-ray had impacted job and 
commercial activities in the lab shared with companies (public/private partnership and/or CNES spin-off).  
NOVAMEMS is now proposing a full service on this new technology with an increase of 10 % of its turnover. 
A spin-off INTRASPEC introduced 3DXray techniques in its magnetic microscopy offer. 
The  University  of  Bristol  trained  a  wide  range  of  researchers  that  contributed  to  the  AGAPAC  programme, 
including two female researchers. 

Impacts and wider social effects  
AGAPAC has been an important milestone towards the widespread of European GaN technology including power 
packages for radio frequency power amplifier into space subsystem. 
The added value of FP7 
Strong link among the consortium partners were created, which gave rise to other collaborations during as well 
as after the implementation of the project  
AGAPAC would not have been supported by a national scheme as there was no national funding available for this 
type of the project. 

29 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

FRESHMON  (High  Resolution  Freshwater  Monitoring:  FreshMon  GMES  Downstream 
Services) and 
μFCU (Miniaturised Flow Control Unit) 
Summary of the impacts 
FRESHMON 
Provision of high-resolution spatial geo-information 
on water quality parameters, addressing the user 
needs of both national and international authorities 
and private entities, as well as positive impacts on 
the industry, the research community and eventually 
the society thanks to the standardisation of water 
quality monitoring services 
The projects 
FRESHMON 
Freshmon aimed at developing a new service-line for 
the continuous provision of Earth Observation based 
products, integrated with in situ and hydrodynamic 
modelling components, for water quality monitoring. 
More specifically, the four project objectives included: 

μFCU 
Development of a miniaturised Flow Control Unit (μFCU) 
outperforming existing technologies with respect to mass 
reduction, leak tightness, drift and long term stability, 
thus contributing to achieving the objective of European 
non-dependence in the field of space 

μFCU 
μFCU is a project aimed at improving European non-
dependence in the field of space. The specific objectives 
included: 

 

  Methodological research in improving and 

harmonising different earth-observation 
(EO)-based methodologies for retrieving 
water constituents and water depth, and 
assimilating this with hydrodynamic models, 
Establishment of validation and quality 
management standards with end users 
Provision of customisation, confidence and 
acceptance of EO products for end users 
Establishment of a European business 
network of downstream inland water service 
providers and end-users. 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

1: Reducing the FCU system mass to less than 
100g per thruster (thruster + neutraliser flow 
line). 
2: Using only components of European origin. 
3: Achieving internal leakage rates below 1E-6 
scc/s GHe over lifetime and extend temperature 
range beyond +90°C. 
4: Demonstrating the operation with at least 
two flow ranges a) 1.5 sccm F.S. Xe, b) 50 
sccm F.S. Xe 
5: Reaching TRL 5 and prepare for a first 
mission towards TRL 7. 
6: Using a modular concept and keep the 
design simple. 

FRESHMON 
Key implementation obstacles  
Possible conflict of commercial interest between 
overlapping partners,  
Two significant risks and barriers to commercial 
exploitation:  

 

 

Politically: No boundaries between 
free/public Copernicus and commercial are 
yet defined 
Technically: no suitable data infrastructure 
that allows accessing Sentinel-data for 
industrial production in global scales 

μFCU 
Key implementation obstacles  
Implementation obstacles were mainly of technical 
nature 
Non-technical barriers included the difficulties for 
SMEs in complying with the project time schedule 

The results 
FRESHMON 
An operational, commercial high resolution service for 
Inland and Coastal waters at outlined in the project 
now exists. Another important achievement was the 
setup of a service for standardising data, which is 
important for end users as it makes different water 
quality services provided by different players 
comparable by end users. 

Problem solving practices 
Not applicable 

Problem solving practices 
The technical experience of the project coordinator 
proved invaluable in: 

 

Setting the right scope for the project, so to 
ensure overall feasibility 

  Managing activities and deadlines. 

One interviewee noted that it is important that the 
project leader is an industrial company focused on the 
achievement of technical advancements. 

μFCU 
The project successfully enabled the development of an 
electric micro-propulsion system. µFCU outperformed all 
existing flow controls thanks to lower leakage and 
enhanced operational range and lifetime: 

 

 

The total mass of the system is below 60 g, vis-
à-vis 400 g – 1 Kg of existing technologies; 
The cycle lifetime capability was reported to 
exceed the satellite control application 
requirements by a factor of three; 

30 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

µFCUs is expected to provide the following benefits: 
freeing weight for components of the payload and 
enabling to save money. 

μFCU 
Contributing to achieving the objective of European non-
dependence in the field of space 

μFCU 
Successful award of another FP7 grant to the 
Miniaturised Pressure Regulator (mPRS) project 
One partner developed a cold-gas thruster using the 
valves developed in µFCU 
Another company accessed new revenues outside the 
space domain thanks to the technology developed 
A company started with two people and hired four 
additional employees 
Another company coming from outside of the space 
domain learned how to adapt the internal processes to 
space activities 
In an ESA tender, the project coordinator was invited to 
make a proposal for the manufacturing of the 
microfluidic control units 

μFCU 
Support to European non-dependence with respect to 
valves, which before the project were manufactured 
exclusively by US players 
Opportunities for SMEs. An interviewed SME is already 
running a follow-up project again organised by the same 
project leader: Miniaturised Pressure Regulator (mPRS) 

The implementation of results  
FRESHMON 
Even if actual commercialisation did not happen 
during the project, it started a few months later.  

Impacts on partners 
FRESHMON 
For one company the first commercial projects for the 
services started in 2014. The service line is foreseen 
to be financially sustainable from early 2015. 
Three of the partner organisations are now working 
together on a follow up project, Global Lakes Sentinel 
Services (GlaSS). 
For one of the organisations, another impact of 
FRESHMON consisted in extending the user base for 
one of their products (a portable spectrometer). 

Impacts and wider social effects   
FRESHMON 
Creation of continuous and accepted downstream 
services for inland water monitoring at European level 
In the next years the global market size is expected 
to be worth about €10 m, with a growth up to €100 
m worldwide in ten years 
Moving to the research community, new methods 
were developed and published 
Impacts on EU policy: a white paper for the European 
Commission was prepared and might be used to 
improve existing EU legislation 

The added value of FP7 
FRESHMON 
The funding provided was crucial; otherwise it would 
have been impossible to set up such a large project  

μFCU 
FP7 supported the performance of the projects, which 
could not be funded for a similar budget and timeframe 
by any possible alternative 

31 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

BIOSMHARS (Bio-contamination Specific Modelling in Habitats Related to Space) 

Summary of the impact  
The  BIOSMHARS  project  has  developed,  calibrated  and  validated  a  mathematical  model  to  predict  the 
transportation of bioaerosols in a closed environment and the concurrent spread of bio-contamination.  
It  is  a  unique  predictive  model  that  could  have  several  applications  in  the  future.  For  example,  the  modelling 
developed  could  be  applied  to  enabling  a  better  prevention  for  contamination  within  closed  or  semi-closed 
habitats these include public buildings, hospitals, aircrafts, cruise boats, schools.  
The  nature  of  the  project  calls  for  a  multidisciplinary  and  international  collaboration  that  was  made  possible 
thanks  to  FP7  Space  research  programme  that  allows  putting  together  the  best  teams,  independently  of  their 
geographical location. 

The project  
The main objective of the project was to develop, to calibrate and to validate a mathematical model to predict 
the transportation of bioaerosols in a closed environment and the concurrent spread of bio-contamination 
It run for almost two years between June 2011 and May 2013. The total cost of the project was €742,342 with an 
EU contribution being €493,345. 
The  project  was  coordinated  in  France  and  BIOSMHARS  is  an  example  of  a  collaborative  project  where  six 
partners were involved: MEDES - the French Institute for Space Physiology and Medicine; SCK-CEN - the Belgian 
Nuclear Research Centre; IBMP – the Russian Institute for BioMedical Problems; UEF - the University of Eastern 
Finland - Expertise on the medical impact of indoor microbial contamination; VTT - the Technical Research Centre 
of Finland - Expertise on mathematical modelling; and IBP - Institute of Biophysics of Siberian Branch of Russian 
Academy of Sciences. 

Key implementation obstacles  

Problem solving practices 

 

Regardless the complexity of the 
project and the involvement of 
researchers with different backgrounds, 
and limited budget, BIOSMHARS 
manage to finish on time and on 
budget. 

 

Coordination by MEDES was effective, orientated 
towards solving problems. This was particularly 
important as this work was quite experimental 
requires a high level of flexibility, innovative 
behaviour and good will. 

The results 
BIOSMHARS project has contributed significantly to a better understanding of bio-aerosols distribution in confined 
environments. 

 

This is in fact the first study that has been able to develop a model to predict such propagation in real 
confined environment after introduction via aerosol; 

The project has contributed to: 

 

The development of a preliminary calibrated predictive model for bio-contamination in closed 
environments, validated in a facility representative of a spacecraft; 

  Has made a significant contribution for future studies on bio-contamination in space, and more 

generally, in close habitats 

  Will contribute to the development of a European–Russian strategy to deal with bio contamination in 
spacecraft and will contribute to the preparation of a road map defining the detailed scientific and 
technical achievements required to solve this issue. 

The implementation of results  
This  is  research  project  that  help  to  advance  knowledge  in  regarding  the  bio-aerosols  distribution  in  confined 
environments 

Impacts on partners 
The project has allowed the partners to put in place a collaboration across different areas of expertise. MEDES (in 
France) specialises in support in space medicine and physiology for space exploration, while VVT (in Finland) has 
the experience microbiology and modelling. 
IBP  in  turn  provided  a  testing  room  (BIOS-3)  that  is  similar  to  a  Space  Station.  Additionally,  the  collaboration 
with IBMP and IBP allowed having access to additional data needed to validate and calibrate the model. It was 
only through this multidisciplinary collaboration that this analysis was made possible. 
The  project  prompted  the  interest  of  ESA,  which  in  2013  launched  the  call  for  proposals  “Understanding  and 
modelling  of  bio-contamination  process  for  exobiology  spacecraft  and  manned  vehicle”  to  develop  a  further 
understanding  of  the  model  developed  under  BIOSMHARS  and  its  applications.  In  this  call,  the  documents  of 
BIOSMHARS were part of the reference documents and were provided as public documents published for every 
person interested by the call.  
The partners have answered to this call and are now working together and collaborating. This comes as a direct 
result of the project. 
However, in this ESA call they have, naturally, not been able to include the Russian partners, hence would not be 
able  to  use  the  same  environment  to  build  into  the  knowledge  developed  under  Fp7  and  will  have  to  use  a 
different validation tool. 

32 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Impacts and wider social effects  
The predictive model develop under BIOSMHARS is quite novel, but more research is needed to adapt the model 
into  other  areas.  Also  more  investment  and  collaboration  with  the  industry  will  be  needed,  in  order  to  start 
developing a product. 
At  this  point  is  clear  that  the  modelling  and  knowledge  developed  under  the  BIOSMHARS  could  influence 
developments  in  different  policy  areas.  For  example,  the  modelling  developed  could  be  applied  to  enabling  a 
better  prevention  for  contamination  within  closed  or  semi-closed  habitats  these  include  public  buildings, 
hospitals, aircrafts, cruise boats, schools.  

The added value of FP7 
The FP7 Space research programme was key in facilitating the cooperation that was needed for BIOSMHARS 
It  allowed  the  consortium  to  select  the  best  players  in  Europe  (not  necessarily  in  countries  with  good 
geographical return such as for ESA) and to collaborate with key partners in Russia using a specific experimental 
facility in Russia and ensuring an exchange of expertise between Russia and Europe. Despite an overall limited 
budget,  the  consortium  managed  to  reach  significant  results  in  a  short  time  and  to  build  a  key  cooperation 
network in the field of bio-contamination in closed habitats. 
Participation  in  BIOSMHARS  project  has  helped  to  substantially  improve  international  collaboration  in  space 
researches. 

AEROFAST (AEROcapture for Future spAce transportation) 
Summary of the impact  
Advances in the maturity of the aerocapture technology from TRL 2 to 3 to TRL 3 to 4; 
Future use of the project output as a reference work (including preparation of flight demonstration) for ESA 
Mars exploration and other missions 
Advancements on guidance, navigation and control (GNC) in the field of planetary defence 

The project  
The  objective  of  the  AEROFAST  project  was  to  design  an  Aerocapture  vehicle  and  to  improve  the 
Aerocapture  technology,  which  uses  atmospheric  drag  to  slow  space  vehicles.  The  technology  allows  for  a 
large amount of mass saving (up to 30%) at launch, and it is well adapted for large weight missions.  
The  project  focused  on  advancing  from  a  technology  readiness  level  (TRL)  between  2  and  3  to  a  TRL 
between 3 and 4.  
The final goal was to contribute to advancement in space transportation, missions affordable, by preparing 
the ground for a flight demonstration on a planet with an atmosphere. 

Problem solving practices 
Expertise,  ability  and  commitment  of  the  project 
coordinator 

Key implementation obstacles  
Management of administrative requirements and the 
necessity of coordinating tight deadlines 
Loose supervision of project implementation 
The results 
The  main  achievement  was  the  successful  completion  of  the  work.  The  team  designed  and  simulated  a 
typical  space  mission  to  test  the  concept.  First,  the  initial  conditions  required  to  perform  each  phase  of  a 
future outer space mission were established, including the launch, cruise and aerocapture phases. 
Development  and  improvement  of  algorithms  for  guidance,  navigation  and  control  (GNC)  systems  in  a 
laboratory simulator.  
Identification of the biconic (aerodynamic) shape as the most appropriate choice for a spacecraft. 
Development  of  thermal  protection  systems  based  on  cork    provided  interesting  results  to  be  further 
explored  

The implementation of results  
The GNC concept developed in AEROFAST has been used  and extended within the FP7 project NEOShield 
Future use of the project output as a reference work (including preparation of flight demonstration) for ESA 
Mars exploration and other missions 

The innovation effects on partners 
One organization hired additional resources with a different background than the one of existing staff 
Innovation initially enabled by AEROFAST was further pursued through subsequent projects 
One organization developed a Pyroelectric sensor for the analysis of the chemical reactions with promising 
applications on the ground 
The  quality  of  the  research  performed  by  the  AEROFAST  project  has  been  recognised  by  the  relevant 
scientific community 

Impacts and wider social effects  
Innovation related to the cork material will have an impact on a number of space activities and missions, as 
well as in sectors such as health and energy 
GNC advancements have an impact in space debris remediation activities and in the Planetary Defence  

The added value of FP7 
Opportunity to bridge scientists and experts from different EU Member States 
Funding enabled companies involved to direct efforts to areas which were not in the programming lines of 
other institutions or National Space Agencies 

33 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

3.3 

Overview of participant and participations  

The  ‘FP7  Space  Research’  programme  has  involved  2,593  participations  and  1,080 
participants (see Figure 13).  The projects have, on average, 10 participants. In most 
of the calls for proposals, this average has fluctuated between 8.1 and 11.2, however, 
the 19 projects corresponding to the first call for proposals (2007-1) had on average 
23 participants, which is more than double the overall average. 

Figure 13 Overview of projects by call – participants and participations 

Call 

Number of projects 

FP7-SPACE-2007-1 
FP7-SPACE-2009-1 
FP7-SPACE-2010-1 
FP7-SPACE-2011-1 
FP7-SPACE-2012-1 
FP7-SPACE-2013-1 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Frequency  Percentage 
19 
27 
77 
33 
50 
51 
257 

7% 
11% 
30% 
13% 
19% 
20% 
100% 

Total  number 
of participants 
in all projects 

Total  number  of 
unique 
participants 
all projects 

in 

Average 
number 
participants 
per project 

of 

447 
268 
665 
368 
404 
441 
2,593 

321 
213 
461 
276 
279 
303 
1,080 

23.5 
9.9 
8.6 
11.2 
8.1 
8.6 
10.1 

Out  of  the  1,080  unique  organisations  involved  in  the  programme,  620  have 
participated  in  projects  related  to  the  thematic  area  ‘Earth  Observation/  Copernicus 
(formerly  GMES)’,  most  of  which  have  been  involved  in  two  or  three  projects. 
Additionally, the projects classified under that thematic area have the largest number 
of participants per project (13.2) in comparison with the other thematic areas. 

Figure 14 Overview of projects by thematic area – participants and participations 

Thematic area 

Number of projects 

Frequency 

Percentage 

33 

35 

106 

Earth  Observation/  Copernicus 
(formerly GMES) 
Space Technologies 
Protection  of  assets  in  and  from 
space (PROTECT) 
Critical Space Technologies 
Space  Transportation,  Propulsion, 
Re-entry 
Space  Science,  Exploration  and 
Data Exploitation 
Horizontal and cross-cutting issues  9 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

257 

29 

23 

22 

41% 

14% 

13% 

11% 

9% 

9% 

4% 
100% 

Total 
number  of 
participant
s 
in 
projects 

all 

Total 
number  of 
unique 
participant
s 
in 
projects 

all 

Average 
number 
participants 
per project 

of 

1,400 

247 

273 

201 

212 

170 

620 

171 

155 

154 

130 

112 

90 
2,593 

68 
1,080 

13.2 

7.1 

8.3 

6.9 

9.2 

7.7 

10.0 
10.1 

3.3.1 

Projects status 

More than half (54.5%) of the ‘Space Research’ projects under FP7 began in 2011 or 
2013,  with  relatively  few  beginning  prior  to  2010  (Figure  15  This  contrasts  with  the 
research  programmes  under  FP7  Cooperation  Programme,  in  which  projects  were 
almost evenly distributed between 2008 and 2013. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 15  Distribution of FP7 Space Research and other priority areas by start year 

Non-space projects

Space projects

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Nevertheless,  although  most  of  the  ‘Space  Research’  projects  under  FP7  started  in 
2011  or  2013,  a  relatively  smaller  share  of  the  overall  budget  was  allotted  to  those 
projects  (43%),  as  the  projects  funded  in  first  two  calls  account  for  22%  of  the  EC 
contribution.  Again,  this  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  first  call  mainly 
included large-scale  GMES  projects,  with  an  average  budget  of  €5.9  million,  which is 
two times bigger than the average budget of projects supported in consecutive calls. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

4. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 1: RATIONALE - WHY 

4.1 

Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space Research 

In  2010,  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  Directorate  H  (Aerospace,  GMES,  security  and 
defence)  commissioned  an  Interim  Evaluation  of  FP7  Space  Research.  The  ex-post 
evaluation  that is  object  of  this  study  builds  on  the  results  of  the  interim  evaluation, 
whose overall aims were to:  

  Evaluate the effectiveness and quality of research activities managed by DG 

ENTR in respect of EU Space Research (FP7 Space Theme 9); 

  Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of programme management and 

implementation; 

  Assess the mid-term progress towards the objectives set in respect of FP7 

Space; 

  Gather an evidence base on the utility and effectiveness of EU funded research 

in the fields of space so as to facilitate the present evaluation;  

  Make recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of programme 

implementation in FP7 Space, as well as to facilitate the preparation of H2020.  

In  the  evaluation,  an  intervention  logic  for  FP7  Space  Research  was  defined.  The 
intervention  logic  included  information  on  indicators  that  could  be  used  to  build  an 
indicator  system  to  monitor  the  programme’s  effectiveness.  The  defined  indicators 
aimed to measure the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of FP7 Space at different 
stages in the programme implementation (Figure 16).  

The Interim Evaluation provided a range of “hard”, “soft” as well as “wider” outcomes, 
which represented the basis for the following set of strategic recommendations14: 

  Better communicate the funding situation of GMES in the context of the new 

Regulation [Regulation (EU) No 911/2010]; 

  Ensure that EU and ESA work together ever -more-closely in the development 
of space technologies in order to maximise available research funding, and to 
ensure synergies between the different Space programmes; 

  The GMES data policy should be debated and defined; 
  There is a need to ensure closer cooperation and coordination between the 

Commission and other EU agencies (notably the EDA) as well as between the 
Commission and national authorities responsible for security and defence , to 
avoid double funding of similar projects; 

  There are some questions about the validity of the emphasis on the industrial 
policy aspect of Space research; some projects should not seek to involve 
industry; 

  Further efforts should be made to clarify and explain the logic of Strengthening 

Space Foundations and to communicate on its value added. 

14 Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space, Final Report, 2011 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 16  Intervention logic of FP7 Space 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Policy  

Needs, 
problems 

Industry  

Research/ 
Academia 

To  develop  GMES  as  a  tool  at  the  service  of  several  EU  needs,  e.g.  in  the  fields  of  transport,  environment,  agriculture,  fisheries, 
telecommunications, security. Furthermore, the EU considers the space field as a strategic domain as it can directly contribute to the 
implementation of a large group of policy objectives, such as: 
  Sustainable  Development,  (e.g.  through  information  gathering  in  support  of  the  Kyoto  Protocol  monitoring  and  the  actions 

resulting from the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development). 

  Common Foreign and Security Policy (e.g. in support of border control, conflict prevention and crisis management). 
 

Lisbon Strategy (e.g. through better opportunities for space related industries, improved access to space-based services such 
as GMES) 

To provide reliable, comparable and timely information across all EU MS 
To guarantee European access to space in the long term  
To develop space technologies in line with user expectations in terms of cost, adaptation to actual requirements and continuity of 
services on offer 

to create market opportunities which will improve competitiveness and profitability 
to create a broad and efficient technological base which will be maintained through research and demonstration programmes  
to provide an institutional market alongside commercial markets 

to build European competence and knowledge base in space research 
to make Europe more attractive to the best researchers 
to  invest  in  human  resources.  Attraction  of  young  scientists  and  mobility  of  young  researchers  were  noted  as  most  acute  for  the 
space sector.  

Support a European Space Programme” with benefits for citizens and competitiveness of the European space industry 

Objectives 

1.  Space based applications at the service 

2.  RTD for strengthening space 

3.  Cross-cutting objectives 

of the European Society 

foundations 

l

a
b
o
G

l

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

 

 

 

 

 

 

To  develop  satellite-based  monitoring  and 
early warning systems 
To  provide  support  to  the  development  of 
GMES services  
To provide security and protection of critical 
infrastructure in the space sector 

Support  to  the  coordinated  provision  of 
observation data 
The  development  of  Earth  observation 
satellites 
Support for the pre-operational validation of 
GMES  

  Delivery  Earth  observation 
services in line with user needs 

information 

 

 

 

 

 

the 

support 

increase 

the 
To 
competitiveness,  cost  effectiveness  and 
independent  access  of  the  European  space 
technology sector 
To develop advanced technologies to be used 
in space sciences 

of 

Research  activities  related  to  space  science 
and exploration 
concepts 
To  develop  new 
space 
and 
transportation 
including critical components 
To research into reducing the vulnerability of 
space–based systems and services 

space 
technologies 

in 

 

 

 

 

To  raise  the  Union’s  political  standing  in 
the  world  through  effective  international 
space cooperation 
Appropriate  involvement  of  SMEs  through 
concrete  measures  and  specific  actions for 
their benefits 

Promote  of  cooperation  in  RTD  field  with 
third 
international 
organisations  
Promote involvement of SMEs participation 

countries 

and 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Foster new and reinforce existing knowledge 
Foster research and technological excellence  
Promote stronger and more effective partnerships between (public) users, industry and the research community 

 
 
 
  Develop new, and strengthen existing capabilities 
  Develop new technologies and innovation 
 

Promote cooperation between enterprises, research institutes and universities 

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
O

Outputs 

 

 
 

Preoperational GMES services  
Take  up  by  users  of  GMES  services  in  all 
thematic areas  
  Worldwide  market 

share 

of  Global 
(GNSS) 

system 

satellite 

Navigation 
applications 
Progress  towards  completion  and  launch  of 
Sentinel  1  2  and  3  A  and  B  and  satellite 
projects 

  Wider  availability  of  appropriate  security/ 

services/technologies for end–users 
Increased  sustainability  of  data  gathered  in 
space 
Increased  scope  for  Space  enterprises  to 
generate revenue through commercialisation 
of research results 

 

 

 

Increase  in  the  world-wide  market  share  of 
applications based on EU satellite systems 
Share  of  new  technologies  being  developed 
by the security research projects 
Number  of  technologies  with  a  quantifiable 
improvement 
cost 
efficiency 

in  mechanical  and 

of 

and 

new 

of  new 

knowledge 

  Generation 
capabilities 
  Generation 
innovation 
Improved  access  to  research  excellence  for 
end–users 
Better  understanding  of  end-user  needs 
among providers 

technologies 

and 

 

 

Number  of  European  networks  created  to 
support participation in FP7 Space activities  
No. of commercial applications developed 
No. of products/technologies developed 

 

 

 
 

No.  of  patents/other  forms  of  IP  developed 
and registered 
No.  of  data  sources/products/technologies 
developed 
No. of knowledge tools developed  
No.  of  studies/research  papers  produced 
(and citations of these ) 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

Share of SME participation  
Indicators for programme participation and 
funding (Number of projects supported and 
of 
number 
applications funded) 

of  partners,  proportion 

Strengthened  cooperation  between  Space 
research  actors  and  counterparts  in  third 
countries/ international organisations  
Strengthened  networking  among  (and 
between) EU Space research actors – large 
institutes  
enterprises,  SME’s, 
universities and users 

research 

Percentage of total SME participations 
Total value of grants allocated to SMEs 
Total EC Contribution allocated to SMEs 
Total  average  value  of  grants  per 
participation (SMEs) 
Average  EC  Contribution  per  participation 
(SMEs) 
Involvement of external stakeholders 

 

 

 

 
 

Results  

Indicators  

Impacts 

Sustainable development monitoring of formulation, implementation and verification of the EC environmental policies 
Support to monitoring of other EU policies i.e. CFSP, agriculture, transport, fisheries, regional policies  

 
 
  Greater ability to predicts future challenges, threats and developments in different areas 
 
 

Improved reliability and quality of space technologies 
Influence on the quality of the knowledge base in Europe 

38 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Another set of recommendations was aimed at programme management15: 

  Consideration could be given to increasing the numbers of staff working at REA 
on Space Research to ensure that there are sufficient resources to manage the 
likely marked increase in workload in the second half of the programming 
period; 

  FP7 should remain a funding tool for new technologies and not for the 

improvement of existing ones. One possibility would be to set the Technology 
Readiness Level (TRL) over which FP7 would fund projects; 

  There is room for further SME participation in FP7 Space , perhaps by having 
dedicated SME topics included in Calls for Proposals, in order to boost the 
number of projects led by SMEs; 
In order to encourage SMEs to take part in projects, it will be appropriate to 
give more recognition to the learning function that can be important for some 
SMEs within FP7 projects; 

 

  Clarify the status of the Space Advisory Group (SAG); 
  The overriding criteria for lead coordinators in selecting partners for project 

consortia should continue to be research excellence in addition to criteria such 
as geographical coverage, and SME involvements (ensuring technology 
transfer); 

  Given that time to grant in FP7 Space is one of the longest in the FP7 

Cooperation Programme, contracting procedures should be further streamlined 
to shorten the timeframes involved in getting projects under way since this 
could have a detrimental effect in some areas of space; 

  Consideration could be given to simplifying application procedures and 

monitoring requirements for particular types of applicants such as end-users; 

  Develop a concept of end user ‘plus’; 
  Enhance the IT system and web -portal used by beneficiaries; 
 

In annual calls for proposals, while the bulk of expenditure should continue to 
be devoted to R&D/ innovation projects, part of the budget should be 
earmarked for prospective research projects, accepting innovative ideas not set 
out in the work programme. 

Some  of  the  recommendations  have  been  already  fully  or  partially  implemented  and 
their impact will be measurable in the next years. 

With specific reference to the set of strategic recommendations, the following actions 
are ongoing: 

  The Commission addressed the needs communicating the updated funding 
situation of GMES (not only for the 2011-2013 period, but also for the 
timeframe 2014-2020) with a series of communications such as “A budget for 
Europe 2020”, as well as the Communication on the European Earth monitoring 
programme (GMES) and its operations (from 2014 onwards)16. The latter 
actually also initially addressed the issue of defining GMES data policy, which 
was then the key focus of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 
1159/2013, establishing: 

- 

- 
- 

“(a) conditions for full and open access to information produced by the 
GMES services and of data collected through the GMES dedicated 
infrastructure; 
(b) criteria for restricting access to that information and data; 
(c) conditions for registration of GMES users.” 

15 Ibid. 
16 COM (2011) 831 

39 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  Almost in parallel with the publication of the Interim Evaluation, on 4 April 

2011 the European Commission released the Communication "Towards a space 
strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens” which: 

-  Called for the development of an industrial space policy to be pursued 

by the EU in close cooperation with EU Member States and the European 
Space Agency; 

-  Recalled that the Space Policy Resolution of the Council of November 

2010 “invited the European Commission, the EU Council, assisted by the 
European Defence Agency (EDA), together with Member States and the 
ESA "to explore ways to support current and future capability needs for 
crisis management through cost-effective access to robust, secure and 
reactive space assets and services […] taking full advantage of dual-use 
synergies as appropriate." It also invited "the European Commission and 
the EU Council to propose policy solutions where necessary". 

-  Stressed the role of well-structured governance, focusing on developing 
relations between the EU and the ESA as well as on the importance of 
strengthening coordination with Member States; 

-  Proposed better space programming among Member States via space 

agencies, the ESA, EUMETSAT and the EU “by enhancing the 
coordination of the programme committees  and, more generally, better 
coordination of the different protagonists' actions in order to meet the 
users' and citizens' needs more consistently and ensure sound and 
efficient management of public resources.” 
Implicitly reaffirmed the value added of the areas covered by 
Strengthening Space Foundations, by stating that “Europe needs a solid 
technological base if it is to have an independent, competitive space 
industry. It must also develop the necessary resources to meet long-
term needs while maintaining basic space research.” 

- 

-  Even though cooperation with ESA, Member States and relevant 

Agencies, as well as well-structured governance, are at the centre of the 
Communications on space issued by the Commission, most stakeholders 
from international, European and national agencies noted that these 
needs are still to be addressed. They suggested that a shared, high-
level strategy taking into account policy and defence issues, as well as 
addressing the needs of the industry, would be beneficial in setting 
priorities for research, allocating tasks and responsibilities and thus 
avoiding overlaps and duplications. 

With  specific  reference  to  the  set  of  recommendations  aimed  at  programme 
management, the following actions are ongoing: 

  REA currently employs 545 professionals and will reach 763 staff members by 

2020, becoming the largest executive agency17 

  Specific calls targeting SMEs together with the new “SME Instrument” have 

been included in the first Horizon 2020 call, showing the willingness to support 
SMEs participation. Calls addressing specifically the needs of SMEs were 
already included under FP7 Space in the 2012 and 2013 work programmes 
  SAG was actively involved by the EC as “The FP7 Space Advisory Group (SAG) 
has, amongst its other tasks for the Commission, been requested to provide 
advice concerning the positioning and content of space-related research within 

17 http://ec.europa.eu/rea/jobs/index_en.htm 

40 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Horizon 2020”18, the Advisory Group contributed with a series of papers 
published in 2010, 2011 and 2012 

  With specific reference to time to grant, the beneficiary survey already shows 

that 54% of beneficiaries are either very satisfied or satisfied with the 
timeliness of contract negotiation, Horizon 2020 introduced further 
commitment to reducing the time to grant by eliminating the negotiation phase 
(the proposed budget is evaluated together with the proposal and has to be 
approved as it is) and by setting a 6-month period between the proposal 
submission and the award of the co-funding 

  Simplification of application procedure has been introduced in the first call 

under Horizon 2020, including for example a single flat rate for indirect costs, 
“average” personnel costs, no timesheet for full time personnel, and a 
simplification of reimbursement rules. All these new rules are aimed at 
reducing the administrative burden on beneficiaries and will have an impact on 
satisfaction of beneficiaries in the next years 

  The inclusion of business plans and business models in many calls under 
Horizon 2020 is aimed at contributing to the creation of a more direct 
connection between beneficiaries and their potential end users, that need to be 
more actively engaged to evaluate the business 

  The enhancement of the IT system and the web portal has been pursued first 
by introducing improvements within the SESAM system (up to version 9.5 
released on March 2013), then in parallel by creating a new participant portal. 
The migration of beneficiaries’ data from SESAM to the Participant Portal and 
from FP7 Space to Horizon 2020 might have caused some initial issues, that 
will be overcome once the transfer of the data is completed 

4.2 

Programme level objectives and stakeholder needs 

4.2.1 

Programme level objectives 

As  specified  in  the  Annexes  of  the  Council’s  Decision  establishing  the  FP719,  the 
general objectives should be achieved through a series of activities and these are: 

1)  Space-based  applications  at  the  service  of  European  society  –  development  of 
innovative satellite communication and GMES services; development of monitoring 
technologies and systems for reducing the vulnerability of space  assets as well as 
applications of space-based systems for risk prevention and risk management and 
all kinds of emergencies; 

2)  Exploration  of  space  through  provision  of  RTD  support  and  maximising  scientific 
added value through synergies with initiatives by ESA or national space agencies in 
the field of space exploration as well as coordinated efforts for the development of 
space-borne telescopes; and 

3)  RTD  for  strengthening  space  foundations  through  research  in  inter  alia  bio-
medicine, life and physical sciences in order to address long term needs as well as 
research  activities  to  increase  the  competitiveness  and  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
European space technology sector. 

18 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/advisory-

groups/sag_paper_on_space_research_in_h2020_december_2012.pdf 

19  Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for  research,  technological 
development 
at: 
http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/90798681EN6.pdf 

demonstration 

(2007-2013) 

available 

activities 

and 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Each  annual  Space  Work  Programme  was  supported  by  an  action  plan  which  was 
based around the principles set out in the 2007 European Space Policy.  

The  European  Commission  has  published  seven  Space  Work  Programmes  which 
outlined the priorities for funding in a specific year. All Space Work Programmes have 
a common objective which is to support the European Space Policy focusing on GMES 
with  benefits  for  citizens,  but  also  other  space-related  areas  such  as  the 
competitiveness of the European space industry.  

4.2.2 

Stakeholder needs as initially assessed 

Prior  to  the  launch  of  FP7  Space  and  during  its  execution,  different  stakeholders 
expressed, before the launch of FP7 Space and during its execution, various needs and 
expectations.  The  most  relevant  stakeholder  categories  (i.e.  policymakers/society, 
industry and academia) as well as their needs are summarised in the table below.  

Figure 17  Summary of EU initial stakeholder needs 

EU 
stakeholders  
Policy  

Industry  

Research 
/ 
Academia 

Initial EU stakeholder needs 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

To  develop  GMES  as  a  tool  at  the  service  of  several  EU  needs,  e.g.  in  the 
fields of transport, environment, agriculture, fisheries, telecommunications, 
security.  Furthermore,  the  EU  considers  the  space  field  as  a  strategic 
domain as it can directly contribute to the implementation of a large group 
of policy objectives, such as: 
  Sustainable  Development,  (e.g.  through  information  gathering  in 
support of the Kyoto Protocol monitoring and the actions resulting from 
the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development). 

  Common Foreign and Security Policy (e.g. in support of border control, 

conflict prevention and crisis management). 

  Lisbon  Strategy  (e.g.  through  better  opportunities  for  space  related 
industries, improved access to space-based services such as GMES)20. 

To provide reliable, comparable and timely information across all EU MS 
To guarantee European access to space in the long term  
To  develop  space  technologies  in  line  with  user  expectations  in  terms  of 
cost, adaptation to actual requirements and continuity of services on offer 

to  create  market  opportunities  which  will  improve  competitiveness  and 
profitability 
to create a broad and efficient technological base which will be maintained 
through research and demonstration programmes  
to provide an institutional market alongside commercial markets 

to build European competence and knowledge base in space research 
to make Europe more attractive to the best researchers 
to invest in human resources. Attraction of young scientists and mobility of 
young researchers were noted as most acute for the space sector.  

Source:  Based  on  publically  available  documents  from  the  European  council,  European 
Commission and ASD Eurospace 

20 More information at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0017 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

When  it  comes  to  defining  the  policy  needs,  this  was  largely  discussed  and 
represented  at  the  ministerial  level.  Between  2004  and  2012  seven  meetings  were 
held, commonly known as the “Space Council”. The objective of these meetings was to 
discuss  the  priorities  of  the  European  Space  Policy  and  agree  on  its  future 
development.  

Already  in  200521,  the  Council  specified  that  the  space  policy  should  “support  the 
technological  preparation,  including  validation,  of  space  systems  responding  to  user 
needs, including those relevant to EU policies”. Furthermore, the Council endorsed an 
approach  to  the  “European  Space  Programme,  which  should  highlight  that  user 
policies  will  in  the  future  need  to  be  more  adequately  reflected  in  the  funding 
scheme”. 

In  2005,  the  Space  Council  provided  draft  orientation  on  GMES  and  confirmed  that 
there is a need to: 

“Develop  a  comprehensive  programme  plan,  addressing  an  overall  GMES 
architecture,  including  the  interrelationship  between  the  components,  and 
consolidating  user  requirements,  costs  &  benefits  and  the  financial 
resources necessary for the implementation of a phased operational GMES 
system”. 

The  European  Space  Policy,  taking  into  account  the  potential  maximum  political, 
economic and social returns,  recognised the need to develop applications in line with 
the  development  and  exploitation  of  space  applications  meeting  the  objectives  of  EU 
policies  and  the  needs  of  European  enterprises  and  citizens.  For  these  reasons  the 
European  Space  Policy  has  been  centred  on  applications  (satellite  navigations,  earth 
observation,  satellite  communications,  security  and  defence)  and  the  so-called 
“foundations”  (science  and  technology,  International  Space  Station  (ISS)  and 
Exploration of the Solar System as well as access to space).   

Moreover,  the  European  Space  Policy  has  been  developed  on  the  basis  of  guidance 
from  the  Council  and  consultation  with  the  Member  States  and  other  interested 
stakeholders.  A  communication  outlining  the  policy  was  released  in  2007  setting  out 
orientations for: 

  Coordinating more effective civil space programmes between ESA, EU and their 

respective Member States to ensure value for money and eliminate 
unnecessary duplication, thus meeting shared European needs; 

  Developing and exploiting European space applications such as GALILEO and 

GMES and satellite communication applications; 

  Preserving EU autonomous access to space; 
 

Increasing synergy between defence and civil space programmes and 
technologies and pursue, in particular, interoperability of civil/military systems; 
and 

  Ensuring that space policy is coherent with, and supports the EU's external 

relationships.   

The 2005 Space Council's pronouncements and subsequent the European Space Policy 
shaping the EU space policy and associated space programme makes a strong case for 

21More 

information 

available 

at: 

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc 

=true&sc=false&f=ST%209440%202005%20INIT 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

work  on  GMES.    It  was  confirmed  that  such  a  comprehensive  programme  would 
provide, on a sustained basis, reliable and timely information related to environmental 
and security issues in support of public policy makers’ needs22 in achieving EU policy 
objectives,  for  example  in  the  fields  of  agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries,  environment, 
climate  change,  health,  telecommunications,  safety,  security,  and  transport.  Indeed, 
typically  public  authorities  and  other  decision-makers  at  all  levels  (local,  regional, 
national and international) were expected to be among the primary users in receipt of 
GMES services and products23.  

The needs of the European space industry lie in creating market opportunities and 
thus strengthening institutional markets. In 2007 ASD-Aerospace noted that the space 
industry  focuses  on  two  strands  of  activities:  institutional  (60%)  and  commercial 
programmes  (40%)  mainly  using  the  same  technologies.  It  was  underlined  that, 
during the ten years prior to the launch of the European Space Policy, the institutional 
markets  had  deteriorated.  ASD-Aerospace  highlighted  the  importance  of  the 
institutional  markets  because  even  markets  sustained  by  a  significant  commercial 
demand are not predicted to allow industry to remain competitive versus international 
competitors24.  In  fact,  institutional  programmes  are  key  drivers  for  the  development 
of new technologies in fields such as Earth sciences, astronomy, space exploration or 
security  and  defence.  ASD  noted  that  no  commercial  market  can  sustain  the  level  of 
investment  required  to  keep  up  with  the  development  of  technical  requirements  in 
these areas, and only institutional programmes can embrace the associated risks25. It 
is also true that business operations in the area of space can be extremely profitable, 
if they are successful; however, the environment in which the space industry operates 
is challenging, difficult to enter, cyclical, and dependent on civil and defence markets 
as  well  as  commercial  and  institutional  markets.  The  required  capital  investments  as 
well as the associated risks are high. All of this leads to a tendency for space systems 
to  perform  poorly  in  terms  of  time  to  market  which  in  turn  can  discourage 
newcomers26. For these reasons, the industry stakeholders realised that the European 
industry  would  also  benefit  from  a  well-defined  European  space  policy  implemented 
through  a  coordinated  programme  supported  in  part  by  the  proposed  research  and 
technological development  actions.  Indeed, the  EC was able to contribute to a better 
definition of common objectives based on user requirements and policy objectives; to 
in  order  to  avoid  duplications  and  maximise 
the  coordination  of  activities 
interoperability; and to the definition of standards.  

In  terms  of  the  research  needs,  a  general  consultation  to  collect  views  on  the 
Commission proposal "Science and Technology, the key to Europe's future - Guidelines 
for  future  European  Union  policy  to  support  research"  was  held  prior  to  the  decision 
establishing the FP7. The consultation exercise sought to identify research themes to 
be  supported  under  the  7th  Framework  Programme.  The  consultation's  results 
the  Commission's  proposal  aimed  at 
demonstrated  strong  agreement  with 
strengthening European support for research. Over 1700 organisations and individuals 
expressed their views, and 97% of respondents expressed positive opinions regarding 
stronger support to research at the European level. This consultation also showed that 
making  Europe  more  attractive  to  the  best  researchers  is  strongly  supported  by 
stakeholders (73%). Interestingly, with regard to supporting two additional new areas 

22More 

information 

available 

at: 

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t= 

PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%209440%202005%20INIT 

23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0017 
24 ASD Focus Issue 01 - Space Policy: the Turning Point 
25  ASD  Eurospace 

-  Toward  a  European  space-specific  procurement  policy?  Available  at: 

http://www.eurospace.org/Data/Sites/1/pdf/positionpapers/eurospaceppindustrialpolicy2010.pdf 

26  Green  Paper  on  European  space  Policy  –  Discussion  point  :  The  European  space  Industry  available  at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/files/gp_industry_en.pdf 

44 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

(as  compared  to  FP6)  –  Space  and  Security  and  Importance  of  helping  to  implement 
European  space  policy  there  was  a  strong  support  from  the  surveyed  stakeholders. 
65% of respondents indicated that this would be very important or important (24.1% 
and  40.4%,  respectively).  Furthermore,  the  respondents  also  noted  that  it  would  be 
very  important  (34.4%)  and  important  (44.4%)  to  support  the  Union’s  political 
objectives27. 

4.2.3 

Links between programme objectives and stakeholder needs 

As  is  evident  from  the  discussion  in  the  previous  section,  the  needs  across  different 
stakeholders  were  not  heterogeneous.  Looking  at  the  links  between  the  programme 
level  objectives  and  the  stakeholder  needs,  the  discussion  not  only  differentiates 
between  different  stakeholders  (policy,  industry,  research)  but  also  different 
objectives (GMES and SSF).  

Regarding the links between the  stakeholder  needs and  GMES, all groups  of high-
level interviewees confirmed that FP7 Space Research was mainly aimed at satisfying 
policy  needs,  which  in  turn  were  designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  EU  society  and  to 
address  the  challenges  it  faces.  The  objective  of  satisfying  policy  needs  clarifies  the 
priorities  given  to  GMES.  Operational  objectives,  programmes  and  activities  were 
assessed  to  be  correctly  addressing  these  societal  challenges  through  the 
development of pre-operational services.   

Most interviewed EU, International and National officials, as well as one representative 
of industry associations acknowledged that the priority objectives set for GMES within 
FP7 could only be achieved through the involvement  of industry.  In this regard, they 
also  argued  that  satisfying  industry  needs  was  instrumental  to  the  achievement  of 
policy needs.  

On  the  one  hand,  the  support  provided  to  projects  related  to  GMES  provided  many 
opportunities  for  industry  players  and  led  to  concentrating  their  efforts  on  GMES-
related  innovation.  In  2008,  the  turnover  of  the  European  Space  industry  reached  € 
5.9  billion,  with  approximately  34,000  employees.  In  that  year,  institutional  sales 
within  Europe  accounted  for  60%  of  the  total,  whereas  commercial  markets  and 
exports  represented  around  40%.  In  the  period  2009-2018,  it  is  expected  that  the 
institutional market  for  GMES services will represent 68%, while commercial markets 
only account for 32%.  

These  figures  demonstrate  the  importance  of  the  institutional  market,  which  is  also 
based  on  high-tech  activities  and  is  seen  as  a  catalyst  for  innovation28.  As  noted  by 
SAG  (2011)  “Europe  has  a  large  part  of  the  commercial  launcher  market  and 
European  industry  competes  successfully  in  the  commercial  markets  such  as 
telecommunication  satellites,  remote  sensing  systems,  etc.,  to  an  extent  larger  than 
the  European  share  of  institutional  funding  in  the  world  context.  The  success  of 
European industry on commercial markets is fundamental for its viability and therefore 
for the affordability of European indigenous space systems such as GMES, Galileo”29.  

The  European  space  industry  has  access  to  two  main  markets:  an  institutional 
domestic  market,  with  a  civil  and  military  component,  and  a  market  for  commercial 
and  export  customers.  Public  customers  are  all  publicly  funded  institutions,  such  as 

27 http://cordis.europa.eu/publication/rcn/6523_en.html 
28 FP7 Space Advisory Group (SAG) (2011): Space research in Horizon 2020 Recommendations 
29 Ibid. 

45 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

space  agencies  (e.g.  ESA,  CNES)  or  public  satellite  operators  (e.g.  Eumetsat).  This 
category also includes military entities. Private customers are all private entities, such 
as  private  satellite  operators  and  other  companies  in  the  sector.  European  industry 
can access a large group of customers, public and private, in Europe and abroad, but 
its core business remains with European public customers (ASD)30.  

Indeed, as reported by Eurospace (2012), in 2011 public customers represented some 
53% of the total turnover of the entire European space industry (with ESA accounting 
for  42%  of  this  share);  however,  this  level  of  support  cannot  be  taken  for  granted. 
Traditional  competitors  benefit  from  economies  of  scale  in  domestic  markets  and 
substantial investments in technology. New competitors have emerged in the last few 
years  at  the  same  time  as  institutional  investments  worldwide  have  increased  at  a 
much higher rate than in Europe (SAG, 2011). 

On  the  other  hand  FP7,  primarily  a  research  programme  which  also  accommodated 
the development of GMES, experienced a series of setbacks mainly linked to the pre-
operational  phase;  however,  one  interviewed  industry  representative  noted  that  this 
was  resolved  by  implementation  of  Copernicus.  Furthermore,  industry  players 
investing  heavily  in  GMES  within  FP7  did  not  always  enjoy  the  expected  returns  on 
investment,  as  the  project  coordinators  of  the  core  projects,  who  were  usually 
industry players interested in developing GMES core services, were not necessarily the 
ones  winning  the  major  tenders  that  followed.  This  could  be  seen  in  the  case  of 
geoland2.  Since  geoland2  was  a  type  of  collaborative  project  requiring  co-funding 
from project partners, in some instances the project partners expected a higher return 
of  investment  once  the  service  were  to  become  operational.  In  spite  of  this,  in  a 
subsequent call for tenders for Copernicus, five consortia involving only some partners 
of geoland2 secured their involvement in five lots out of six  available. On the project 
coordinator  side,  even  though  the  involvement  in  Geoland2  was  perceived  as  a 
strategic  decision  in  terms  of  the  company’s  growth,  the  project  coordinator  did  not 
gain a role in the follow-up operational activities. 

FP7 was aimed at bringing together all research-related EU initiatives to boost growth, 
competitiveness, and employment, mainly through a series of innovations in key areas 
of  research.  As  a  consequence  the  Framework  Programme  had  to  cover  the  entire 
innovation  process  from  basic  research  to  pre-operational  services.  Companies  were 
the  major  drivers  in  putting  together  the  outcomes  of  research  and  innovation.  Yet, 
despite the acknowledged importance of both large companies and SMEs in this role, 
industry participation, whether as a share of funding or number of participants in the 
subsequent FPs, had been declining continuously31.  

Looking  at  the  five  different  categories  of  individual  participants32  in  space  and  non-
space  projects,  it  can  be  seen  that  space  projects  account  for  significantly  fewer 
private-for-profit institutions as a share of total participants, compared with other FP7 
projects (figure below). 

30 ASD-Eurospace: Facts and Figures 
31 Report of the Expert Group (2010): Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme available 
at:http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp7_interi
m_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf 

32 Splitting participants into five categories - higher and secondary education institutions, private-for-profit 
institutions,  public  bodies  (excluding  research  and  education),  research 

(excluding  education) 
organisations, and others 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 18  Participants by type 

Space Research

39,0% 

7,8% 

25,5% 

24,7% 

3,1% 

Other priority areas (excl.
Space)

66,6% 

6,8% 

7,3% 

13,1% 

6,2% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Private for profit (exc. education) institutions Public bodies (exc. research and education)

Higher and secondary education institutions Research organisations

Others

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Companies  are  faced  with  burdensome  and  expensive  processes  in  participation, 
involving  complex  instruments,  post-project  auditing  practices  which  result  in 
unexpected  financial  penalties.  Moreover,  financial  rules  are  too  often  difficult  to 
understand.  These  reasons,  among  others,  deter  companies  from  participation  and 
may mean that Europe’s capabilities for innovation are not fully exploited33. 

Focusing  on  the  capacity  of  GMES  activities  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  large  industry 
players, as opposed to the needs of SMEs, one EU official noted that the role of large 
players  was  particularly  relevant  in  the  coordination  of  big  consortia  involved  in  the 
core  services,  while  SMEs  played  an  important  role  (also  as  coordinators)  in  the 
downstream services. Focusing on user needs (i.e. of public administrations), one EU 
official  suggested  that  GMES  projects  always  include  the  consultation  of  potential 
users,  to  guarantee  both  technical  feasibility  and,  eventually,  the  satisfaction  of 
citizens’  needs.  Such  a  mechanism  was  seen  to  be  particularly  effective  with  respect 
to the development of core services. 

Considering  the  needs  of  the  research  community,  these  were  acknowledged  as 
not being a focus of funded projects within  GMES, as the large majority of the budget 
was  allocated  to  applied  research  and  pre-operational  activities  rather  than  to  space 
science.    The  different  scope  and  goal  of  GMES  activities  were  clear;  however  since 
the  budget  specifically  devoted  to  GMES  was  significant  this  had  an  impact  on  the 
overall budget available for scientific space activities. 

Regarding  stakeholder  needs  in  Strengthening  Space  Foundations,  it  was 
acknowledged by most of the interviewed EU officials and members of advisory groups 
and committees that the relatively low budget allocations rather than the objectives of 
the  actions  were  unsatisfactory.  Not  surprisingly,  some  industry  stakeholders 
interviewed  in  the  scope  of  high-level  interviews  reported  that  the  space  industry 
would have benefitted from increased funding in this area as the allocated budget did 
not fulfil industry needs.  

FP7  Space  has  been  much  more  focused  on  low-TRL  and  scientific  space  activities. 
Industry  participation  in  FP7  Space  has  been  low,  especially  when  compared  to 

33 Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme, page 48 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

research  and  education  entities’  participation  (Figure  above).  The  open  call  system 
and  the  openness  characterizing  the  call  texts,  set  with  the  intention  of  avoiding 
prescriptive  call  text  (generic  rule  for  all  FP7  themes),  did  not  make  it  the  ideal 
instrument  either  for  medium  to  high  TRL  activities  with  specific  technology  and 
development-related requirements, or for short term needs.  

Figure 19  Distribution across types of participant organisations 

Source: Technopolis, 2014 

It was also suggested (both by industry representatives and proposal evaluators) that 
the  needs  of  industry  were  not  taken  forward,  possibly  due  to  the  needs  being  quite 
technical  vis-à-vis  the  broader  policy  needs  considered  by  the  Commission.  Actually, 
stakeholders  suggested  that  stronger  technical  competences  of  the  Call  formulators 
would improve the relevance of topics within the definition of the calls and would also 
improve their effectiveness (by identifying the correct scope, budget, etc.). 

However, there were some specific areas of FP7 Space where the industry needs were 
satisfied,  for  example,  Critical  Technologies.  It  was  explained  however  that  the  co-
financing  scheme  was  not  what  industry  expected,  mainly  because  of  the  perceived 
risk  of  investments  by  the  industry.  It  was  in  fact  the  main  criticism  shared  by 
representatives  of  different  categories  of  stakeholders  (industry  representatives  and 
national  and international  organisations).  This  issue  was  also  acknowledged  by  some 
of the interviewed EU officials.  

In terms of the  needs  of the research community  and SSF, the general view was 
that  the  space  research  community  would  have  benefitted  from  increased  funding.  A 
representative  of  the  Space  Advisory  Group  suggested  that  many  good  ideas  were 
brought forward (e.g. on solar exploration), however these could not be implemented 
due to budget unavailability. Yet it is also important to note that before the FP7 came 
into  force,  the  space  research  community  was  fragmented  and  there  were  fewer 
opportunities  outside  national  budgets  for  the  community  to  work  together.  FP7 
brought  the  scientific  community  together  as  the  researchers  from  different 
organisations  could  collaborate  on  the  same  projects,  which  has  had  a  tremendous 
impact on the quality of the knowledge base in Europe, creating European added value 
that  could  not  have  been  achieved  otherwise.  For  example,  the  space  weather 
community had an opportunity to respond to several calls with considerable budgets, 
at least as compared to other thematic areas.  This has provided some continuity for 

48 

3% 8% 25% 25% 39% 2% 7% 29% 29% 33% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% OTH PUB REC HES PRC Survey All participant organisations  
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

research  in  this  thematic  area.  Furthermore,  the  FP7  Space  Advisory  Group  noted34  
that  apart  from  the  continuous  strategic  research  and  technological  development 
carried out over the years by the ESA, the FP7 has also promoted space research by 
including space as an independent theme, promoting further projects, particularly, but 
not exclusively, in the domain of GMES. Indeed, FP7 has devoted 85% of the available 
resources to drive forward the development of the GMES system and applications. The 
rest  of  the  financial  resources  have  been  used  for  strengthening  space  foundations 
and  a  limited  set  of  cross-cutting  issues.  Considering  that  a  significant  part  of  the 
budget  was,  appropriately,  dedicated  to  GMES-related  topics,  budget  limitations  for 
the  other  areas  inevitably  existed.  The  decision  to  spread  the  remaining  funding 
across a large number of broadly defined areas may with hindsight not have been the 
most effective way of achieving results. 

As  noted  by  the  FP7  Space  Advisory  Council,  supporting  European  space  industry 
competitiveness as well as addressing the issue of technological dependence of Europe 
align  on  common  objectives,  as  both  issues  deal  with  access  to  leading  edge 
technologies  which  condition  the  ability  of  industry  to  be  present  on  all  markets 
potentially accessible to Europe (SAG, 2011). 

With this in  mind,  a  significant part  of  R&D  activities in  FP7  have  been  providing  the 
support  to  the  development  of  critical  technologies  for  European  strategic  non-
dependence.  This  links  to  the  European  Space  Policy  and  the  Space  Council 
Resolutions.  As  noted  by  the  Advisory  Council,  experience  shows  that  although there 
is  significant interest  by  all  European  stakeholders  in  having  the  EU  strongly  support 
critical  technologies,  the  present  mechanisms  are  not  the  best  suited  to  implement 
technology developments, e.g. co-funding, no guarantee for development in a system 
of calls, no customer specifications, in terms of performance and quality, no reference 
development plans, no commitment to deliver, etc.35 

Furthermore,  the  beneficiary  survey  explored  whether  FP7  Space  research  actions 
correspond to the needs of  EU  stakeholders and the  results obtained showed  strong 
relevance across objectives and type of stakeholders.  

Respondents  offered36  generally  positive  indications  of  the  alignment  between  the 
objectives of FP7 Space Research and their own objectives (see Figure below). 

The  majority  states  that  the  FP7  Space  Research  objective  is  highly  relevant  to  the 
“International standing of space science in Europe”. Around 80% of respondents gave 
a score of 5 or 4 to this objective. Just fewer than 70% of respondents gave scores of 
4  and  5  to  the  relevance  of  FP7  Space  Research  to  supporting  global  leadership  in 
space manufacturing, and to improving the level of EU influence in international space 
policy.  

Looking  at  the  relevance  of  FP7  Space  Research  objectives  to  EU  stakeholders,  the 
positive  evaluations  –  5  and  4  in  a  scale  from  1  (little  or  no  relevance)  to  5  (great 
relevance) – range between 80% of the first objective and 40% of the least relevant 
objective, highlighting overall positive results. 

34 FP7 Space Advisory Group (SAG) (2011): Space research in Horizon 2020 Recommendations 
35 Ibid. 
36  Respondents  were  asked  to  rate  the  extent  to  which  FP7  Space  Research  objectives  correspond  to  the 
needs of EU stakeholders, using a scale from 1 to 5, where a score of 1 indicates the objective is of little 
or no relevance and a score of 5 means that the programme is of great relevance to the issue in question. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 20 Relevance of FP7 Space Research objectives to EU stakeholders’ needs 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 603 responses 

Respondents  were  also  asked37  to  rate  the  extent  to  which  FP7  Space  Research 
actions respond to the needs of the different segments of the Space sector, including 
the space research community, the upstream and downstream sectors, policy makers, 
SMEs and the EU citizens.  

In  this  case,  respondents  also  indicated  that  in  general,  the  actions  of  FP7  Space 
Research  correspond  well  to  the  different  stakeholders’  needs,  as  shown  in  Figure 
below. In particular, respondents stated that the FP7 Space Research programme is of 
high  relevance  to  the  needs  of  the  Space  Research  community  (85%  of  responses 
provided  a  high  score).  The  lower  satisfaction  that  characterises  Space  Research 
Community is due to the different weight attributed to objectives (positively evaluated 
above) and to the budget the allocated to Space Research objectives (perceived as not 
big enough to fully meet the needs of the community). 

37 Again, they rated this using a scale from 1 to 5, where a score of 1 indicates the objective is of little or no 
relevance and a score of 5 means that the programme is of great relevance to the stakeholder in question. 

50 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Commercial exploitation Capitalisation on the potential of Europe's SME to drive innovation in space Provision of improved services to EU citizens Improving EU influence in international space policy Global leadership in space manufacturing and applications International standing of space science in Europe 5 (great relevance) 4 3 2 1 (little or no relevance)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 21  FP7 Space Research actions responding to EU stakeholders’ needs 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 606 responses. 

Around 50% of respondents also indicated that FP7 Space  Research corresponds well 
to  the  needs  of  the  upstream  industry,  policy  makers  and  SMEs,  while  only  40%  of 
respondents  gave  a  high  score  to  the  programme  in  terms  of  its  relevance  to  the 
downstream industry and EU citizens. 

4.3 

Framework of FP7 and clear logic between general and specific objectives  

4.3.1 

Framework of objectives 

As  outlined  in  earlier  sections,  the  Council’s  Decision  establishing  the  FP7  elaborated 
on the general objectives: 

a.  Space-based applications at the service of European society; 

b.  Exploration of space; and 

c.  RTD for strengthening space foundations. 

With  regard  to  the  coherence  of  the  structuring  of  research  activities,  FP7  Space 
Research was distributed across a number of areas, which are recognised as high-level 
strategic  areas  for  funding.  In  FP7,  the  Space  theme  is  divided  into  two  main 
categories: Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) and Strengthening 
Space  Foundations  (SSF).  While  the  first  category  supports  the  development  of  an 
independent European  Earth  Observation capability, the second applies to a series of 
fundamental  research  fields.  As  noted  in  the  two  publications  Let’s  Embrace  Space 

51 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other stakeholders EU citizens Downstream industry SMEs Policy makers Upstream industry Space research community (including academia) 5 (great relevance) 4 3 2 1 (little or no relevance)  
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

outlining the outcomes  of the first three  calls38, the main topics addressed under the 
FP7 Space theme were: 

  The development and validation of pre-operational GMES services,  
  Support to the coordinated provision of data to related FP7 projects, 
  The development of dedicated space infrastructures for GMES (in cooperation 

with the European Space Agency); 

  Support to research in space science and exploration; 
  The development of new concepts in space transportation, space technologies 
and critical components to promote the strategic objective of European non-
dependence; 

  Support to research for reducing the vulnerability of space-based systems. 

Taking  the  above  into account,  it  emerges  that  projects  supported  through  FP7  were 
broadly  in line  with  the  two  main  themes:  GMES  and  SSF.  The  Interim  Evaluation  of 
FP7 Space Research noted that there were appropriate linkages between the definition 
of objectives and the types of activities supported by themes (CSES, 2011). The study 
team  also  concluded  that  the  programme  logic  is  coherent,  even  if  the  nature  of 
upstream  space  research  makes  it  unlikely  for  the  commercial  stakeholders  to  use 
some  of  the  results  in  the  short-term,  which  was  also  confirmed  by  the  industry 
interviewees.  

Indeed,  looking  at  the  distribution  of  individual  calls  in  work  programmes  between 
2007 and 2013, it can be noted that for the Activity: 9.1  Space-based applications at 
the  service  of  European  Society  -  pre-operational  validation  of  GMES  services  and 
products there was one call issued each year.  Other areas were given less attention, 
as the development of the pre-operational services was the major focus of FP7. As for 
the  Activity:  9.2.  Strengthening  the  foundations  of  Space  science  and  technology  - 
Research  to  support  space  science  and  exploration  as  well  as  Research  to  support 
space  transportation  and  key  technologies,  there  also  was  a  call  issued  each  year.  
The number of calls under other specific areas varied as can be seen in the following 
table.  

38 DG Enterprise and Industry (2011) and (2012): Let’s embrace Space, Volume I and Volume II 

52 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 22  Areas and topics per Work Programme 

Activity: 9.1 Space-based applications at the 
service of European Society 

Area / 
Work 
Program
mes 

Area  
9.1.1:  

Area  
9.1.2  

Area  
9.1.3 

Pre-
operation
al 
validatio
n of 
GMES 
services 
and 
products 

Integration 
of sat com 
and satellite 
navigation 
solutions 
with space-
based 
observing 
systems 

Support 
to the 
coordinat
ed 
provision 
of 
observati
on data 

Area 
9.1.4  
Devel
opme
nt of 
Earth 
obser
vation 
satelli
tes 

WP 2007 

WP 2008 

WP 2009 

WP 2010 

WP 2011 

WP 2012 

WP 2013 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Source: Annual Work Programmes, FP7 Space 

Area  
9.1.5:  

Continu
ity of 
GMES 
service
s in the 
areas 
of 
Marine 
and 
Atmosp
here 

X 

Activity:  9.2.  Strengthening  the 
foundations  of  Space  science 
and technology 
Area  
9.2.1:  

Area  
9.2.2:  

Area  
9.2.3:  

Area 
9.2.4:  

Researc
h to 
support 
space 
science 
and 
explora
tion  

Research 
to 
support 
space 
transport
ation and 
key 
technolo
gies 

Research 
into 
reducing 
the 
vulnerabi
lity of 
space 
assets  

Activity: 9.3 Cross-cutting activities 

Area 
9.3.
4:  

Cros
s-
the
mati
c 
appr
oach
es 

Area  
9.3.3:  

Area 
9.3.5:  

Dissemi
nation : 
Transn
ational 
and  
Intl 
coopera
tion 
among 
NCPs 

Studie
s and 
event
s in 
suppo
rt of 
Europ
ean 
Space 
Policy 

Area  
9.3.1:  

Area  
9.3.2:  

Area  
9.3.2:  

SME 
specifi
c 
resear
ch 

Intern
ationa
l 
Coope
ration 

Cross-
border 
co-
operatio
n (and 
Europea
n 
Research 
Area 
Networks
)  

X 

X 

Suppo
rt to 
New 
EU 
Memb
er 
States 
/ 
Associ
ated 
States 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

4.3.2 

Links between general and specific objectives  

Figure 23 shows that 57% of the total budget of the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme 
devoted to calls for proposals was allocated to projects corresponding to the thematic 
area  ‘Earth  Observation/Copernicus  (formerly  GMES)’.  Those  projects  have  had  an 
average  total  cost  and  an  average  EC  contribution  that  is  higher  than  the  overall 
average. Regarding the “Protection of assets in and from space”, a total of 33 projects 
have  been  funded  in  this  area,  which  represents  10%  of  the  total  EC  contribution  to 
the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme. Additionally, 8% of the total budget allocated to 
the  ‘FP7  Space  Research’  programme  corresponds  to  projects  in  the  area  of  ‘Critical 
Space  Technologies’  while  7%  correspond  to  ‘Space  Science,  Exploration  and  Data 
Exploitation’. 

Figure 23 Overview of projects by thematic area - budget 

Thematic area 

Total 
project 
cost 

EC 
Contribution 

Total 

Total 
average 
budget 

Average  EC 
Contribution 

'000 

(in 
EUR) 

(in 
'000 
EUR) 

Percentage 

(in  '000 
EUR) 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

Earth  Observation/  Copernicus 
(formerly GMES) 

534,508 

369,211 

57% 

5,043 

3,483 

Space Technologies 

91,610 

66,445 

10% 

2,617 

1,898 

Protection of assets in and from 
space (PROTECT) 

90,902 

64,662 

10% 

2,755 

1,959 

Critical Space Technologies 

79,163 

54,385 

8% 

2,730 

1,875 

Space Science,  Exploration  and 
Data Exploitation 
Space 
Propulsion, Re-entry 
Horizontal  and  cross-cutting 
issues 

Transportation, 

63,315 

48,040 

7% 

2,878 

2,184 

58,723 

41,046 

6% 

2,553 

1,785 

8,895 

7,447 

1% 

988 

827 

Total 

927,115 

651,235  100% 

3,607 

2,534 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

The  Interim  Evaluation  (CSES,  2011)  already  indicated  that  there  were  appropriate 
linkages between the identification of problems and needs, the definition of objectives 
and the types of activities supported by theme. As outlined by the Interim Evaluation, 
discussions with both beneficiaries and end-users suggested that the programme logic 
was fit for purpose, with which our interviewees broadly agreed.  

Regarding GMES, one  EU official noted that it introduced many new opportunities for 
market players, as several applications were developed through FP7 in different areas. 
Among  others,  an  example  was  provided  on  how  protection  of  coastal  areas  was 
achieved  thanks  to  a  project  on  coastal  management  activities,  where  earth 
observation can be used to protect salmon farming businesses from algae blooms.  

Regarding strengthening space  foundations, interviewees from space  advisory groups 
and  committees,  as  well  as  some  interviewed  EU  officials  pointed  out  that  the 
activities were coherent with the levels FP, Specific Programme, work programme to a 
large extent and the main issue was low budget allocation. 

As reported by REA, SSF calls were oversubscribed, hinting that there is an enormous 
appetite to develop basic space technologies. Among the limitations suggested during 
the interviews, one that has already been discussed was the open call system and the 
openness  of  the  call  texts,  established  with  the  intention  of  avoiding  prescriptive  call 
54 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

text. In some cases, this made it very difficult to focus on specific research priorities. 
In  fact,  it  was  noted  that  some  projects  could  not  be  easily  and  strongly  linked  to 
objectives  of  the  calls  due  to  the  wide  spectrum  of  topics  covered  by  calls.  While  a 
wide scope  of  calls ensures openness and incentive of researchers, a  narrower  scope 
would  help  to  focus  research  on  specific  needs  identified  in  the  calls;  however,  no 
specific examples were given.  

4.4 

Coherence between EU Space initiatives  

4.4.1 

Regulatory affairs 

The EU has managed its space activities through coordination  between individual MS, 
ESA  and  the  EU  itself.  Following  various  European  Commission  communications,  the 
first EU Space Policy  was adopted in May 2007. Among the developments that led to 
its  adoption  we  can  mention  the  publication  of  a  European  Commission  green  paper 
and  a  subsequent  white  paper  (2003);  the  signing  of  a  Commission–ESA  framework 
agreement (2004); the establishment of the Space Council; and consultations among 
the EU, ESA and private stakeholders. 

The competences of the EU in the space domain were further enhanced by the Lisbon 
Treaty,  confirming  that  the  space  policy  rests  on  three  pillars:  the  Member  States, 
the EU and ESA. The Lisbon Strategy was only replaced by Europe 2020 in 2010 which 
was also acknowledged in the work programmes. The 2011 Work Programmes began 
to  relate  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  e.g.  through  better  opportunities  for  Space-
related industries and geo-information services, improved access to space-based data 
for services such as GMES39.  

The Space Council called upon the EU, ESA and the Member States to take necessary 
steps to promote a commercial space sector, to  ensure that current and future space 
activities make effective use of available funding according to agreed priorities.  

Indeed, as underlined by the Interim evaluation of FP7 Space Research with regard to 
coherence with the EU framework, the rationale for the FP7 Space programme (as set 
out in the FP7 Programme Decision  –Theme 9 deals with Space Research) is coherent 
with  key  EU  policy  communications  on  space  (notably  the  European  Space  Policy 
adopted  in  May  2007  by  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  and  the Council  of  ESA), 
which highlights the significance of European cooperation in the fields of GMES, access 
to  Space,  ISS  and  space  exploration,  science  and  technology  and  more  broadly  in 
governance and industrial policy (CSES, 2011). 

In  2011  the  European  Commission  published  the  Communication  "Towards  a  space 
strategy  for  the  European  Union  that  benefits  its  citizens”  40which  reflects  the  crucial 
role of space for the economy and society. The rationale for the FP7 Space programme 
is also coherent with this Communication as it introduces the main priorities for future 
EU  space  policy,  which  include  ensuring  the  success  of  the  EU's  two  flagship  space 
programmes  Galileo  and  Copernicus,  the  protection  of  space  infrastructures,  and 
space  exploration.  The  Communication  appeals  also  for  the  development  of  an 
industrial space policy in close cooperation with EU Member States and the European 
Space Agency. 

39EC 

(2010):  Work 

Programme 

2011, 

cooperation 

Theme 

9 

Space, 

available 

at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89281/j-wp-201101_en.pdf 

40  European  Commission  (2011):  Towards  A  Space  Strategy  For  The  European  Union  That  Benefits  Its 

Citizens, COM/2011/0152 final 

55 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

4.4.2 

Galileo and Copernicus 

The  EU  space  initiatives  concentrate  largely  around  two  main  flagship  initiatives: 
Galileo  and  GMES.  Galileo  is  Europe’s  global  radio  navigation  satellite  system. 
Proposed  by  the  European  Commission  in  1999,  Galileo  was  the  first  large  project 
jointly  funded  by  the  EU  and  executed  by  ESA.  Composed  of  a  constellation  of  30 
satellites  in  medium  Earth  orbit,  Galileo  provides  users  with  navigation,  timing  and 
positioning  derived  services.  It  is  the  first  EU  space  flagship  project  and  will  remain 
one  of  the  major  building  blocks  of  the  EU  intervention  in  Space.  Galileo  is  Europe's 
own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global 
positioning  service  under  civil  control.  Development  and  implementation  of  Galileo  is 
coherent  with  key  communications  of  EU  space  policy,  notably  with  the  latest 
communication  on  2011  space  policy  which  places  focus  on  inter  alia  a  success  of 
flagship programmes. Galileo is also expected to bring social and economic benefits of 
around €90 billion are expected over the next 20  years will also impact the industrial 
space policy in Europe. 

Copernicus  is  the  second  EU  flagship  programme  with  a  major  space-based 
component  (the  Sentinel  satellites)  that  provides  earth  observation  data.  Copernicus 
consists  of  a  complex  set  of  systems  which  collect  data  from  multiple  sources:  earth 
observation  satellites  and  in  situ  sensors  such  as  ground  stations,  airborne  and  sea-
borne sensors. It processes these data and provides users with reliable and up-to-date 
information through a set of services related to environmental and security issues. The 
services  address  six  thematic  areas:  land,  marine,  atmosphere,  climate  change, 
emergency  management  and  security.  They  support  a  wide  range  of  applications, 
including  environment  protection,  management  of  urban  areas,  regional  and  local 
planning, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, health, transport, climate change, sustainable 
development,  civil  protection  and  tourism.  GMES  pre-operational  services 
developed through FP7  provided the basis for the Copernicus operational  programme 
which  began  operational  services  in  2011.  Copernicus  is  coherent  with  key 
communication  on  EU  space  policy.  Development  and  implementation  of  GMES,  now 
Copernicus,  was  always  a  key  priority  of  the  European  Space  Policy  and  is  coherent 
with the latest 2011 EU communication. Copernicus is expected to lead to benefits of 
up to €70 billion over the period 2014-3041  therefore will also impact on the industrial 
space policy in Europe. 

4.4.3 

European Space Agency  

The  European  Space  Agency  is  supported  by  20  Member  States.  The  national  bodies 
responsible for space in these countries take part in the ESA’s governing Council and 
the  Member  States  include:  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal,  Romania,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  as  well  as 
Norway42.  Hungary,  Estonia,  Latvia  and  Slovenia  are  participating  in  the  Plan  for 
European  Cooperating  States  (PECS),  while  other  countries  are  in  negotiation  with 
ESA  about  joining  this  initiative.  ESA's  main  purpose  is  to  maintain  and  to  promote 
cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space 
applications  being  used  for  scientific  purposes  and  for  operational  space  applications 
systems specifically: 

41 Ibid. 
42 Canada also sits on the Council and takes part in some projects under a Cooperation Agreement. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by 

recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the 
policies of the Member States with respect to other national and international 
organisations and institutions; 

  by elaborating and implementing activities and programmes in the space field; 
  by coordinating the European space programme and national programmes, and 
by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the 
European space programme, in particular as regards the development of 
applications satellites; 

  by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its 

programme and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the Member 
States. 

ESA’s  activities  fall  into  two  categories  –  ‘mandatory’  and  ‘optional’.  Programmes 
carried  out  under  the  General  Budget  and  the  Science  Programme  budget  are 
‘mandatory’.  These  include  the  agency’s  basic  activities  such  as  studies  on  future 
projects, technology research, shared technical investments, information systems and 
training programmes. All countries participating in the ESA have to contribute to these 
activities  and  individual  contributions  are  based  on  country  GDP.  The  ‘optional’ 
activities are only of interest to some ESA members, which are free to decide on their 
level  of  involvement.  Optional  programmes  cover  areas  such  as  Earth  observation, 
telecommunications,  satellite  navigation  and  space  transportation.  Similarly,  the 
International  Space  Station  and  microgravity  research  are  financed  by  optional 
contributions43.  

From  an  operational  perspective,  space  activities  have  been  addressed  in  Europe  for 
more than 30 years by the European Space Agency in many programmes, and by the 
EU  within  the  Framework  Programmes.  These  programmes  were  aimed  to  allow 
Europe to pursue the objective of developing applications and activities that are more 
operational.  In  this  context,  the  development  of  European  programmes  for  Earth 
observation  became  a  very  important  element  in  enhancing  the  coherence  between 
the  EU  space  initiatives  and  further  reinforcing  the  relationship  between  the  EU  and 
ESA. 

43http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/01/ESA_budget_by_domain_for_2014_M_Million_Euro 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure  24  GMES  –  development  of  cooperation  between  European  Commission  and 
ESA  

Already in 2007, funding for of GMES was agreed by ESA Member States participating 
in the programme. This was an important decision as GMES was a significant step 
forward in closer cooperation between ESA and the European Commission. Phase 2 of 
Segment 1 of the GMES Space Component (GSC) programme was approved by ESA 
Member States in August 2007 with an oversubscription. As indicated in the ESA 
Annual Report: a Grant Agreement between the European Commission and ESA on 
data access was signed in December, ensuring coordinated supply of EO data for the 
pre-operational phase of GMES from 2008 to 2010. The consortia in charge of the first 
GMES fast-track and pilot services were selected by the EC in the course of the year, 
with ESA support for the evaluation of the proposals44. 
In 2008, in the field of Earth observation, progress was achieved, in particular on 
GMES as the delegation agreement between ESA and the European Commission was 
signed, as well as the contract signature for Sentinel-2 and -3 and the go-ahead for 
Segment 2 of the GMES Space Component at the Ministerial Council was approved as 
well. As for Earth observation satellite launches, three Earth Explorers were expected 
to be launched in 2009: GOCE, SMOS and CryoSat-2, strengthening the EU’s position 
in tackling climate change. 
The EC/ESA agreement covering the EC financial contribution to the GMES Space 
Component (GSC) programme was signed in February 2008. The ESA Ministerial 
Council was again a success for GMES, with a subscription of €831 million for the GSC 
Segment 2, 97% of the requested financial envelope. At the Fifth Space Council in 
September, a Resolution on ‘Taking forward the European Space Policy’ was adopted. 
The resolution ‘reaffirmed the role of ESA as development and procurement agency for 
the dedicated GMES Sentinel missions, and as coordinator for the whole GMES Space 
Component’.45. In 2009, following the Sixth Space Council in May, ESA and the 
European Commission began consultation with EU and ESA Member States owning 
space infrastructure to discuss long-term data procurement and financial aspects 
related to data for land monitoring, emergency response and security. It was also 
agreed that the ESA GMES Services Element was going to further develop sustainable 
GMES monitoring services for tropical forests, polar zones, food security, geo-hazards 
and European coastal water quality in the next three years.  There was also a close 
collaboration for Services for Maritime Security between ESA and the European 
Commission (DG-JLS, DG-MARE)46. 
The Regulation on GMES and its initial operations (2011–13) entered into force at the 
end of 2010, leading to the preparation of the programme’s operational phase as 
detailed in the second amendment to the ESA/Commission Agreement on the 
Implementation of the GMES Space Component.  

ESA has also an annual budget of over €3.5 billion dedicated to  inter alia R&D, while 
SSF  provides  complementary  research  funding  for  new  technologies.  The  results  of 
such  research  can  then  be  taken  further  by,  for  example,  ESA  and  brought  to  a 
demonstration 
into  operational 
technologies.  After  identifying  the  most  interesting  technologies,  ESA  or  commercial 
companies  will  afterwards  develop  them  further.  ESA  does  provide  a  similar  type  of 

level  where  they  can  be 

further  developed 

44 ESA (2008): Annual Report 2007 
45 ESA (2009): Annual Report 2008 
46 ESA (2010): Annual Report 2009 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

‘blue-sky’47 research grants, the Basic Technology Research Programme which is only 
open  to  private  companies  or  research  institutes  but  does  not  support  cooperation 
between potential beneficiaries (CSES, 2011). 

Surveyed beneficiaries primarily reported that in the absence of the support provided 
by  the  FP7  Space  Research  programme,  their  projects  would  not  have  gone  ahead 
(55%)  which  shows  that  the  programme  has  a  high  level  of  added  value.  One  EU 
official  also  declared  that  FP7  brought  the  scientific  community  together  as  the 
researchers from different organisations could collaborate on the same projects, which 
has  had  a  tremendous  impact  on  the  quality  of  knowledge  base  in  Europe. 
Furthermore,  a  majority  of  respondents  (58.2%)  felt  that  their  project(s)  could  not 
have been supported by a national scheme or ESA rather than by FP7 funding. 

Figure 25 In the absence of FP7 Space Research support 

My organisation would not have gone ahead with the
project(s)

My organisation would have proceeded with the
project(s), but with a reduced scope

My organisation would have proceeded with the
project(s), using alternative sources of funding

My organisation would not have gone ahead wight he
project(s), but would have done another one instead

My organisation would have proceeded with the
project(s), but with a longer timeframe

My organisation would have proceeded with the
project(s), but with fewer partners

27,8% 

21,2% 

18,5% 

17,9% 

15,5% 

55,0% 

Do not know

3,1% 

None of the above

2,2% 

Other

1,3% 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 547 responses. 

4.5 

Overlaps and complementarities  

While investigating  the  overlaps  and  complementarities,  it is important  to  distinguish 
between the activities of ESA and Member States.  

4.5.1 

Overlaps and complementarities with ESA  

ESA  has  responsibilities  in  all  areas  of  space  activity.  As  noted  in  ‘Lets  Embrace 
Space’, DG Enterprise and Industry collaborated with the ESA regarding the definition 
of topics to be included in the calls launched under FP7 Space Research Programme. 
This  close  collaboration  was  to  ensure  that  the  themes  funded  through  the  FP7  are 
complementary  to  the  work  carried  out  by  ESA.  It  was  also  noted  that  ESA  also 

47 'Blue sky’ basic science is focused on advancing knowledge, but it can sometimes generate unexpected 

applications. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

provides contributions during the evaluation process to guarantee that projects chosen 
for funding do not overlap with projects already funded by ESA48.  

There were some complementarities between the ESA and the EU, as reported also in 
ESA  Annual  Reports.  For  example,  in  2011  ESA  worked  closely  with  the  European 
Union  on  ‘supporting  an  innovative  and  competitive  Europe’  and  ‘enabling  services’. 
The lessons learned from this support and its value for ESA were assessed to support 
the definition of ESA in Horizon 202049.  

With  regard  to  the  cooperation  within  the  security  domain,  as  noted  by  the  Interim 
Evaluation  of  FP7  Space  Research,  some  articles  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  included  scope 
for  greater  cooperation  between  civil  protection  agencies  and  the  military,  although 
this was introduced by the previous Treaty in the context of the Common Foreign and 
Security  Policy  and  European  Security  and  Defence  Policy  (CSES,  2011).  More  than 
120  delegates  representing  European  institutional  stakeholders  and  industry  across 
the  civilian,  security  and  defence  domain  attended  the  ‘Space  for  Security  and 
Defence’  workshop  jointly  organised  by  the  European  Defence  Agency  (EDA), 
European  Commission  and  ESA  in  Brussels  on  16  September  2010.  ESA  is 
participating  in  the  Structured  Dialogue  on  Space  and  Security,  together  with  the 
Commission, the EU Council and EDA, and was invited by EDA during the ESA Council 
in  December  2010  to  participate  in  the  European  Framework  Cooperation  entailing  a 
coordinated R&D approach in the security domain for Europe (ESA, 2010).  

Our  consultation agreed that there are mostly complementarities between FP7 Space 
and  ESA  activities.  This  is  mainly  based  on  the  fact  that  there  was  a  clear  split  in 
responsibilities and budget in FP7, where a set part of the budget was ring-fenced for 
infrastructure  development  and  managed  by  ESA.  As  a  consequence,  the  share  of 
budget  allocated  to  GMES  was  basically  free  of  problems  of  overlaps,  with  the 
exception  of  “downstream”  ESA  programmes  (e.g.  ARTES  20)  which  possibly  overlap 
in  the  service  dimension  of  Earth  Observation.  One  stakeholder  outlined  that  that 
cooperation  between  the  ESA  and  the  European  Commission  within  the  FP7  Space 
programme should have been further enhanced.   

An  EU  official  pointed  out  that  ESA  and  projects  under  FP7  do  not  to  fund  the  same 
activity  twice.  The  same  interviewee  also  noted  that  there  was  coordination  between 
the FP7 and ESA activities on the list of critical technologies, which is defined by joint 
efforts.  

As a general comment, one EU official noted that Member States can contribute to the 
funding  of  infrastructure,  but  they  did  not  necessarily  want  to  do  that  through  FP7. 
This  is  mainly  because  FP7  calls  were  opened  to  stakeholders  from  all  EU  Member 
States  and  beyond,  and  not  only  to  stakeholders  from  countries  that  invested  in 
specific projects, like in the case of ESA. The latter is preferred by the Member States 
as this can better guarantee the return of investment, at least to some degree. 

As a further possibility for improvement, one of the interviewed EU officials indicated 
that  there  were  no  formal  procedures  for  involving  ESA  in  discussions  regarding  the 
distribution of funds through FP7. In line with this comment, it was noted that closer 
coordination with ESA at all phases of each future space call (at the time of writing the 
Work  Programme  text,  at  proposal  evaluation  and  negotiation  phases,  and  at 
monitoring of projects) could have been beneficial. 

48 DG Enterprise and Industry (2011): Let’s embrace Space, Volume I 
49 ESA (2012): Annual Report 2011 

60 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

4.5.2 

Overlaps and complementarities with Member States 

Programme  Committees  are 
from  Member  States  and 
formed  of  experts 
representatives  from  Associated  countries.  They  play  a  formal  role  -  they  vote  and 
have  to  agree  on  the  Commission's  management  of  the  FP7  programme.  The 
Programme  Committee  checks  how  the  Commission  manages  the  programme  and 
feeds  in  ideas  and  suggestions.  This  system  of  checks  and  balances  is  important  for 
the Commission.  

In 2006, the Council established that the European Commission is responsible for the 
drawing up and management of specific and work programmes, with the assistance of 
the  Programme  Committee  (PC)50.  The  Decision  established  the  Programme 
Committee  for  the  execution  of  the  specific  programme  'Co-operation'  implementing 
for  research, 
the  7th  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community 
technological development and demonstration activities (2007 - 2013) - Configuration 
'Space'.  The  main  objective  of  the  PC  was  to  support  a  European  Space  Programme 
focusing  on  applications  such  as  GMES  with  benefits  for  citizens  and  for  the 
competitiveness  of  the  European  space  industry.  This  will  in  turn  contribute  to  the 
development  of  a  European  Space  Policy,  complementing  efforts  by  Member 
States and by other key players, including the European Space Agency (ESA). It was 
underlined  that  to  this  extent  the  EC  will  contribute  to  the  definition  of  common 
objectives  based  on  user  requirements  and  policy  objectives;  to  the  coordination  of 
activities, to the avoidance of duplications, to the facilitation of interoperability and 
to the improvement of cost-effectiveness.  

Between 2007 and 2013, the PC – Configuration Space met at 30 formal meetings as 
summarised in the table below.  

Figure 26 The Programme Committee – Configuration ‘Space’ 

C32400 - The programme Committee - Configuration 'Space' 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Number 
meetings 

of 

5 

5 

5 

3 

5 

5 

2 

Sources: Information taken from the Annual Reports available at: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=Report.Report 

It is also of interest to look at the agendas of these meetings (minutes are not always 
publicly available). For example, in 2008 the following topics were discussed at the PC 
meeting:  

 

Information on GMES European Commission and ESA coordination mechanisms 
and approaches; 

  Overall coordination issues between European Commission and ESA; 
  Specific coordination as regards GMES Services; and 
  Specific coordination in place as regards Strengthening Space Foundations. 

Also,  in  2008,  the  Commission,  taking  note  of  the  results  of  the  evaluation  of 
proposals  submitted  under  Theme  9,  established  the  list  of  RTD  actions  involving 

50  COUNCIL  DECISION  of  19  December  2006  concerning  the  Specific  Programme  "Cooperation" 
implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 
development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) 2006/971/EC 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

collaborative projects and coordination and support actions. The  list of RTD proposals 
was submitted to the MS in the Committee for opinion. 

The  Figure  below  summarises  the  number  of  MS  which  took  part  in  the  PC  meetings 
between  2008  and  2012.  An  average  number  of  participating  MS  is  18,  which 
represents 71% of the total. 

Figure 27 Number of MS participating in the PC meetings 

Date of the Programme Committee Meeting  

Number of MS participants  

Eighth Meeting - 27 May 2008 

Ninth Meeting - 05 Sep 2008 

Tenth Meeting - 17 Oct 2008 

Eleventh Meeting – 26 March 2009  

Twelfth Meeting - 19 Jun 2009 

Thirteenth Meeting - 10 Nov 2009 

Fourteenth Meeting - 15 December 2009 

Fifteenth Meeting -  16 Mar 2010 

Eighteenth Meeting - 10 Feb 2011 

Nineteenth Meeting – 8 March 2011 

Twenty-second Meeting -  05 Oct 2011 

Twenty-third Meeting - 08 Feb 2012 

Twenty-fourth Meeting - Mar 2012 

Twenty-fifth Meeting - 08 Jun 2012 

Twenty-sixth Meeting - 04 Oct 2012 

Twenty-seventh Meeting - 14 Dec 2012 

Twenty-eighth Meeting - 12 Mar 2013 

Twenty-ninth Meeting - 14 Jun 2013 

21 

14 

16  

21  

17 

21 

16 

21 

21 

20 

19  

20  

19 

20  

18  

10 

18  

16  

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.result 

The Commission's proposals for the work programmes needed also to be assessed by 
the  Commission’s  own  experts  advisory  group.  This  group  has  provided  another 
dimension  to  the  potential  overlaps  and  complementarities  with  the  MS,  as  the 
advisory  group  was  constructed  of  the  experts  from  across  Europe.  The  Space 
Advisory Group consisted of 23 independent experts from 13 Member States51.  

51 http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/advisory-groups/space-members.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none 

62 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The  space  call  covering  2007  and  2008    provided  specific  funding  for  reinforcing  the 
network of National Contact Points (NCP) for the FP7 under Space theme by promoting 
trans-national co-operation. The call focused on identifying and sharing good practices 
through e.g. benchmarking, joint workshops, training, and twinning schemes. Special 
attention was placed on helping less experienced NCPs rapidly acquiring the knowhow 
accumulated  in  other  countries.  In  2010  the  space  call  provided  specific  funding  for 
Coordination of national activities for land monitoring where projects were expected to 
identify 
to  provide 
recommendations  on  how  to  improve  user  uptake  of  existing  national  activities  and 
services  (WP,  2009).  In  2011  the  work  programme  provided  funding  for  an  action 
which  also  welcomed  involvement  of  FP7  contacts  from  third  countries  and  the 
international  cooperation  partner  countries.  It  was  expected  that  the  project  should 
provide also assistance to the R&D community during the start-up of post-2013 Space 
research funding in the EU. 

commonalities  among  different  Member  States  and 

In addition to the support of research cooperation between beneficiaries from EU MS, 
third  countries  and  international  partners,  there  have  been  specific  topics  that  are 
similar to the values of ERA -NET, for example transnational cooperation among NCPs,  
which offered funding for setting up a network of national contact points to contribute 
(inter alia) to defining a common approach to awareness-raising activities.  

Indeed, COSMOS+52 is an EU funded network of Space NCPs. The acronym stands for 
Continuation of Cooperation of Space NCPs as a Means to Optimise Services. The NCPs 
are  supporting  the  European  Commission  in  the  implementation  of  the  FP7  by 
definition  of  common  objectives,  taking  part  in  the  common  training  sessions, 
performing common activities like information days on calls comprising matchmaking, 
which involve the network directly. The NCPs operate a website as well as a helpdesk 
and issue a newsletter.  

Furthermore,  in  2011  the  space  call  also  provided  funding  for  dissemination  projects 
involving international cooperation among NCPs. This action was aimed at identifying 
and sharing good practices though various mechanisms. The proposal was also aimed 
at  leading  to  an  improved  NCP  service  across  Europe,  therefore  helping  to  simplify 
access  to  FP7  calls,  lowering  the  entry  barriers  for  newcomers,  and  raising  the 
average quality of submitted proposals (WP, 2010).  

In terms of the complementarities and overlaps between the FP7 and  Member States 
it would be important to consider key national authorities active in the space domain. 
To  this  extent  we  consider  at  least  the  Forschungszentrum  der  Bundesrepublik 
Deutschland  für  Luft-  und  Raumfahrt  (DLR),  the  Centre  National  d’Etudes  Spatiales 
(CNES),  the  Agenzia  Spaziale  Italiana  (ASI)  and  the  UK  Space  Agency  (UKSA)  to  be 
vital  for  this  task.  The  table  below  summarises  key  points  from  the  space 
strategies/activities of the four organisations.  

52 http://ncp-space.net/ 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 28 Key National Space Authorities  

Entity  Description 

DLR 

CNES  

ASI 

UKSA 

DLR is the national aeronautics and space research centre of the Federal Republic of Germany. 
Its  research  and  development  work  in  aeronautics,  space,  energy,  transport  and  security  is 
integrated into national and international cooperative ventures. In addition to its own research, 
as  Germany’s  space  agency,  DLR  has  been  given  responsibility  by  the  federal  government  for 
the  planning  and  implementation  of  the  German  space  programme.  DLR  is  also  the  umbrella 
organisation for the nation’s largest project management agency. The key objectives of DLR as 
defined in its strategy are to: 

Extend strategic space competencies 
Establish a coherent legal framework 
Sustainably develop a strong position in space research 

 
 
 
  Open up new markets 
 
 
  Define German and European roles in space exploration 
Secure technological independence and access to space 
 

Use space for civilian and military security 
Shape the European allocation of roles in space 

Founded  in  1961,  the  Centre  National  d’Etudes  Spatiales  (CNES)  is  the  government  agency 
responsible for shaping and implementing France’s space policy in Europe. CNES implements it 
in five key strategic sectors: access to space; earth, environment and climate; civil applications; 
security and defence; and space sciences. 
CNES  also  represents  France  within  the  European  Space  Agency  and  the  international  arena; 
more  importantly  partners  with  ESA,  other  space  agencies,  the  scientific  community  and 
industry.   France  and  Europe’s  independent  access  to  space  depends on  Europe’s spaceport  at 
the  Guiana  Space  Centre  (CSG)  and  a portfolio  of  three  launchers:  Ariane 5,  Soyuz  and  Vega. 
Currently CNES is working with other partners to develop a new-generation launcher, Ariane 653.  

The  Italian  Space  Agency  (ASI)  was  founded  in  1988  and  its  purpose  was  to  coordinate  all  of 
Italy's efforts and investments in the space sector. In its Strategic vision 2010 – 2020, the two 
major  objectives  of  the  Italian  space  policy  were  set  up  and  are  to  increase  awareness  of  the 
space  sector  within  Italian  Society  and  response  to  the  goals  and  needs  expressed  by  the 
citizens. It was noted that themes and priorities in scientific research are determined in a global 
perspective, by exchanging the ideas and cooperative work among scientists around the world.  
No stakeholder in the space environment can afford to ignore the global nature of initiatives in 
space  science.  Execution  of  these  general  objectives  is  achieved  through  three  lines  of  action 
mapped within the context of the European plan for management of space activity:  

 

Foster existing areas of national competence and develop new ones, mainly  without 
duplication of capabilities already available in Europe; 

  Maintain the close cooperation between ASI and the European Space Agency, 

continuing the established practice of dedicating about 50% of ASI funding for major 
programs where qualified roles and substantive returns for Italy are assured; and 
Support ESA’s role as agency for European Space Policies54. 

 

Exploration;  Microgravity 

Currently,  ASI  runs  several  programmes  in  the  space  including:  Deep  Space  Observation  and 
Robotic 
Earth  Observation; 
and  Human 
Telecommunications; Access to Space; Navigation, Technology and Education. 
In 2014, the National Space Security Policy55 was set up highlighting the key policy objective of 
the United Kingdom’s space security interests and these are: 

Exploration; 

 

 
 
 

To make the United Kingdom more resilient to the risk of disruption to space services 
and capabilities, including from space weather; 
To enhance the United Kingdom’s national security interests through space; 
To promote a safe and more secure space environment; and 
To enable industry and academia to exploit science and grasp commercial opportunities 
in support of national space security interests. 

It  was  committed  that  the  Government  will  continue  to  strengthen  the  UK  presence  in  key 
European organisations including the European Space Agency and will actively position the UK to 

53  More  information  available  at:  http://www.cnes.fr/web/CNES-en/10949-five-strategic-focuses-for-an-

ambitious-space-policy.php 

54 ASI : Strategic Vision 2010- 2020 
55 HM Government (2014): UK National Space Security Policy; April 2014 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

exploit  the  €12  billion  of  European  Union  space  investment  over  the  next  seven  years.  It  was 
also highlighted that the UK Government investment in ESA totals £1.2 billion and over the next 
five  years  much  of  this  is  focused  on  areas  which  will  bring  the  strongest  possible  economic 
return56. 

When looking the top 50 participants in CORDA only two public authorities are listed in 
the ranking: DLR and CNES.  

Figure 29 DLR and CNES participation in FP7 

Overall value of projects   

Average EC contribution  

Ranking per total EU contribution 

Number of participated projects 

Ranking per number of participations 

Ranking  per  number  %  of  times  organisations 
acted as coordinator 

DLR 

CNES 

EUR 27,444,920 

EUR 3,450,563 

EUR 428,827 

EUR 215,660 

1 

64 

1 

12 

36 

16 

7 

26 

% of projects with coordination task 

21,9% 

6.3% 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

DLR  is  ranked  first  when  looking  at  the  total  EU  contribution  as  well  as  the  overall 
number  of  participated  projects.  DLR  was  also  ranked  12th  regarding  the  number  of 
times  the  organisation  coordinated  projects  under  FP7.  As  for  CNES,  the  average  EC 
contribution  was  noted  to  be  EUR  215,660  which  places  CNES  on  the  36th  position, 
however, the total number of projects in the authority participated was 16 which ranks 
7th overall.   The fact that DLR and CNES were actively involved in the Fp7 space calls 
brings additional dimension to the assessment of complementarity of national and FP7 
space  projects.  Taking into  account  the  number  of  projects  that  DLR  and  CNES  were 
part of suggests that both national authorities were well aware of the FP7 priorities for 
funding in a given year. This knowledge, although not officially reported, lets the study 
team  conclude  that  it  had  impacted  on  design  and  implementation  of  national 
activities within space domain.   

Interviewees  agreed  that  there  could  have  been  some  overlaps  with  the  activities 
funded by MS, e.g. support to scientific research, but again no examples were given; 
however,  the  amounts  provided  by  MS  were  not  sufficient  and  FP7  certainly 
complemented a number of possible funding sources (interviewees reported that ESA 
does  not  provide  funds  for  scientific  research).  An  EU  official  noted  that  activities 
under  SSF  were  coordinated  with  Member  States.  The  same  official  noted  in  some 
instances  (although  no  specific  examples  were  given)  it  could  not  be  prevented  that 
the same type of activities were funded in different countries as MS have  overlapping 
priorities. In order to solve this issue, a key action suggested by several stakeholders 
is to improve control, management and dissemination of project results, so as to avoid 
duplication of efforts between EU and national initiatives.  

56  Government  Response  to  the  UK  Space  Innovation  and  Growth  Strategy  2014  –  2030Space  Growth 

Action Plan APRIL 2014 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

4.6 

Conclusions   

With  regard  to  the  programme  level  objectives  and  the  needs  of  EU  stakeholders,  it 
can  be  concluded  that  FP7  Space  Research  Programme  was  correctly  designed  to 
support  policy  needs.  Taking  into  account  the  Council  and  the  Commission 
communications,  it  is  clear  that  the  main  policy  need  was  to  develop  the  pre-
operational  GMES  services  in  order  to  support  public  users  in  achieving  EU  policy 
objectives  in  fields  such  as  agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries,  environment,  climate 
change,  health,  telecommunications,  safety,  security,  and  transport.  The  decision  to 
devote  the  majority  of  the  available  resources  to  the  development  of  a  dedicated 
GMES  space  infrastructure  was  a  necessary  condition  in  enabling  the  operational 
Copernicus  Programme  to  take  place  in  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework. 
This was achieved to date and GMES/Copernicus represent the response to satisfying 
the  monitoring  needs  generated  by  directives  and  policies  and  thus  to  support  users 
across  Europe  in  their  efforts  of  fulfilling  their  obligations.  This  is  by  far  the  most 
important  achievement  of  FP7  Space  Research.  The  nature  and  the  extent  of  user 
uptake of such core services are yet to be determined.  

As  for  the  support  of  industry  needs,  it  is  noted  that  the  needs  were  only  partially 
addressed. Nevertheless, it is true that with the funding provided through FP7 Space, 
the EC created an institutional market needed for the European stakeholders to drive 
technological development in the key areas of space domain. The system of open calls 
did not provide sufficient basis for the development of medium to high TRL activities. 
Furthermore, the co-financing principle was judged not to be particularly encouraging 
for the industry, as there  was no guarantee of full investment return or  continuity of 
services.  

Furthermore,  it  is  concluded  that  FP7  corresponded  well  to  the  needs  of  the 
research  community. Beyond success in the GMES area, FP7 Space was  successful 
in  promoting  cross-border  collaboration,  the  creation  of  networks  and  partnerships, 
especially  within  the  research  community.  Beneficiaries  stated  that  the  FP7  Space 
Research  programme  is  of  high  relevance  to  the  needs  of  the  Space  Research 
community  (85%  of  responses).  Certainly,  FP7  provided  alternative  funding  to  MS 
funding instruments as  well as ESA projects, which are open  only for  partners  of the 
nations that contribute to the related programme. The main issue that was identified 
was  the  lack  of  budget  allocated  to  scientific  space  activities  and  the  fact  that 
remaining  funds  were  spread  across  a  wide  spectrum  of  topics.  This  lack  of  a 
mechanism  to  prioritise  promising  concepts  provided  however  equal  opportunities 
across  research  areas.  Some  continuity  of  activities  could  have  been  ensured  either 
from  applicants  or  EC  side.  This  is  partially  addressed  in  Horizon  2020  where 
proposals  are  requested  to  provide  a  business  plan  after  implementation  of  the 
project,  so  the  project  beneficiaries  do  not  rely  on  EC  funding  entirely.  On  the  other 
hand, a list outlining funding of projects beyond one framework timeframe would help 
the beneficiaries to allocate internal priorities accordingly.  

With  regard  to  the  general  objectives  of  the  FP7  Space  Research  and  the  specific 
objectives of work programmes, it is perceived that the logic between them is clear. 
The  Council  Decision  outlined  the  general  direction,  which  research  and  development 
in  the  space  domain  should  follow  under  FP7:  notably  GMES  and  SSF.  These  were 
mirrored  and  further  developed  by  a  series  of  specific  objectives  on  which  the  work 
programmes focused. Distribution of calls was broadly in line with the political agenda 
giving priorities and the vast majority of budget to GMES.  

FP7  Space  Research  is  coherent  with  other  space  initiatives.  FP7  contributes  and 
enhances  the  competences  of  the  EU  in  the  area  of  space  by  fulfilling  its  mandate 
granted  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  The  introduction  of  a  specific  EU  competence  in  the 
space domain helped to define competences between  EU and ESA. Broadly speaking, 
ESA  focuses  on  research  and  development  of  space  systems  and  their  applications, 
while the EU brings a clear picture of how space can best serve Europe’s citizens and 
66 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

European policies and provides additional funding to the space programmes. FP7 also 
contributed  to  Europe  2020  Smart  and  Sustainable  Growth  and  Innovation  by 
providing  better  opportunities  for  space-related  industries  through  services  such  as 
GMES.   In fact, support for GMES by both ESA and FP7 has enabled GMES to be the 
European  contribution  to  GEOSS  (Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems),  an 
international  public  infrastructure  using  land,  sea,  air  and  space-based  Earth 
observation  systems  to  provide  comprehensive  environmental  data,  information  and 
analyses. 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  European  Space  Policy  there  has  been  a  division  of 
competences between ESA and the EU, which helped to manage the space activities in 
Europe,  enhancing  complementarities  and  eliminating  overlaps.  This  was  further 
improved  by  the  fact  that  ESA  was  responsible  for  the  development  of  infrastructure 
for  the  pre-operational  GMES  activities  with  the  funding  provided  under  FP7  which 
strengthened  the  cooperation  between  the  two.  Our  consultation  suggested  that  the 
cooperation  between  ESA  and  the  EU  in  fact  could  be  reinforced  as  the  skills  and 
experience of ESA are not used to the maximum extent.  Regarding other areas of FP7 
Space,  since ESA combines responsibilities in nearly all areas of  space activity, these 
are  mostly  complementary,  but  some  minor  overlaps  exist  between  FP7  Space  and 
ESA activities.  

MS authorities are at different stages of development of space activities which makes 
the assessment challenging. There are four key Member States that have taken space 
research to the next level by developing their own strategies, and providing additional 
funding to achieve objectives, but only two of them are among the top 50  FP7 Space 
participants.  

Considering  the  interactions  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Programme 
Committee,  we  conclude  that  the  space  activities  of  Member  States  were 
coordinated  to  the  extent  possible  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  and  enhance 
complementarities.  On average 70% of MS participated in the PC meetings, where it 
was  possible  to  comment  upon  work  programmes.  Specific  funding  for  the 
coordination  of  NCPs  has  contributed  (inter  alia)  to  defining  a  common  approach  to 
awareness-raising  activities.  Nevertheless,  it  seems  that  even  higher  effort  (in  terms 
of activities and funding would be beneficial to disseminate project results.  

67 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

5. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 2: IMPLEMENTATION – HOW 

5.1 

Overview of FP7 Space Research Actions 

5.1.1 

Projects and participations 

In  order  to  better  reveal  the  thematic  nature  of  FP7  Space  investments,  rather  than 
just  count  projects,  the  study  team  worked  with  the  DG  ENTR  Research  and  Space 
Policy team to classify activities into seven thematic areas: 

  Earth Observation/ Copernicus (formerly GMES); 
  Space Technologies; 
  Protection of assets in and from space (PROTECT); 
  Critical Space Technologies; 
  Space Science, Exploration and Data Exploitation; 
  Space Transportation, Propulsion, Re-entry; 
  Horizontal and cross-cutting issues. 

Figure 30 shows estimated total project costs and contracted EU contributions for the 
FP7  Space  Research  Area,  broken  down  into  these  seven  thematic  areas.    It  shows 
that  around  60%  of  programme  expenditure  has  been  committed  to  ‘Earth 
Observation/  Copernicus  (formerly  GMES).’57    The  table  also  shows  that  the 
Copernicus  projects  are  on  average  much  larger  –  in  financial  terms  –  than  the 
projects in any of the other thematic areas and somewhat bigger than the average for 
the programme overall. 

Figure 30 Overview of projects by thematic area and budget 

Thematic area 

Total  project 
cost 

EC 
Contribution 

Total 

(in '000 EUR) 

(in  '000 
EUR) 

% 

Total 
average 
budget 
(in  '000 
EUR) 

Average  EC 
Contribution 

(in 
EUR) 

'000 

Space 

90,902 

91,610 

534,508 

Observation/ 
(formerly 

Earth 
Copernicus 
GMES) 
Space Technologies 
Protection of assets in and 
from space (PROTECT) 
Critical 
Technologies 
Space 
Exploration 
Exploitation 
Space 
Propulsion, Re-entry 
Horizontal 
cutting issues 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Science, 
and  Data 

Transportation, 

927,115 

79,163 

63,315 

58,723 

8,895 

cross-

and 

369,211 

66,445 

64,662 

54,385 

48,040 

41,046 

7,447 

651,235 

57% 

10% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

6% 

1% 

5,043 

3,483 

2,617 

1,898 

2,755 

1,959 

2,730 

1,875 

2,878 

2,184 

2,553 

1,785 

988 

827 

100% 

3,607 

2,534 

57 As already noted in the introduction, this ex post evaluation of FP7  Space Research Actions has focused 
on that half of the programme devoted to R&D activities, and it has not included the €700m of the €1.43 
billion  EU  budget  committed  to  GMES  /  Copernicus  Infrastructure  (the  Sentinel  satellites).    This  was 
implemented  through  delegation  to  ESA  and  is  closely  linked  with  the  GIO  programme  and  the 
forthcoming Copernicus operational programme.  We understand it will be evaluated in that context. 

68 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 31 presents an overview of project numbers and participants across the seven 
thematic  areas,  and  shows  a  distribution  that is  broadly  comparable  to  that  revealed 
by the financial analysis.  

EO  projects  dominate  the  portfolio  (41%)  and  horizontal  and  cross-cutting  projects 
are  rather  less  common  (4%).    In  fact  a  total  of  620  (out  of  the  1,080  unique 
organisations involved in the programme) have participated in projects related to the 
thematic area ‘Earth Observation / Copernicus (formerly GMES)’, most of which have 
taken  part  in  two  or  three  projects.    Additionally,  the  projects  classified  under  that 
thematic  area  have  entailed  the  largest  number  of  participants  per  project  (13.2)  in 
comparison with the other thematic areas. 

Figure 31 Overview of projects by thematic area – participants and participations 

Thematic area 

Number of projects 

Frequenc
y 

Percenta
ge 

Total 
number  of 
participant
s 
in  all 
projects 

Total 
number  of 
participant
s 
in  all 
projects 

Average 
number  of 
participant
s 
per 
project 

41% 

14% 

33 

35 

106 

Observation/ 
(formerly 

Earth 
Copernicus 
GMES) 
Space Technologies 
Protection of  assets  in  and 
from space (PROTECT) 
Critical Space Technologies  29 
Space 
Propulsion, Re-entry 
Space  Science, Exploration 
and Data Exploitation 
Horizontal 
cutting issues 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Transportation, 

cross-

257 

and 

9% 

9% 

4% 

23 

22 

9 

11% 

13% 

100% 

1,400 

247 

273 

201 

212 

170 

90 

620 

171 

155 

154 

130 

112 

68 

2,593 

1,080 

13.2 

7.1 

8.3 

6.9 

9.2 

7.7 

10.0 

10.1 

One  may  further  split  the  distribution  into  ‘space  technologies’  and  ‘protection  of 
assets’  each  accounting  for  13-14%  of  the  project  portfolio,  while  the  other  three 
thematic areas all fall in the range of 9-11%.  

Regarding  “Protection  of  assets  in  and  from  space,”  a  total  of  33  projects  have  been 
funded in this area, which is 13% of the portfolio in terms of the number  of projects 
and  10%  of  the  total  EC  contribution.    Out  of  the  1,080  participants,  155  have  been 
involved in projects related to this thematic area.  Additionally, 8% of the total budget 
allocated to the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme corresponds to projects in the area 
of  ‘Critical  Space  Technologies’  while  7%  correspond  to  ‘Space  Science,  Exploration 
and Data Exploitation.’ 

5.2 

Efficiency 

Looking  at  the  programme  level,  a  distinction  should  be  made  between  GMES 
projects  (in  particular  those  regarding  core  services)  and  the  ones  focused  on  the 
strengthening space foundations and cross-cutting activities pillars. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

As shown in Figure 12 projects in the field of Earth Observation had nearly double the:  

  average budget (more than €5 million against € 2.67 million); 
  average participant ratio (13.2 against 7.9). 

as  compared  with  other  thematic  areas.  The  difference  in  average  project  size  was 
reported by four interviewees to have had an impact on efficiency.  

GMES  projects  were  sometimes  large,  leading  to  difficulties  in  managing  and 
coordinating consortia with more than 50 partners. Stakeholders who brought forward 
this argument considered this large size as a possible source of inefficiency; however, 
the  stakeholders  recognised  that  the  choice  of  larger  projects  was  motivated  by  the 
need to achieve a single stream of activities for each core service, rather than several 
uncoordinated projects. 

Moreover,  the  2012  call  tested  an  alternative  approach  (i.e.  dividing  large  projects 
into  smaller  projects,  each  focused  on  a  specific  community,  to  be  coordinated  at  a 
higher level).  All stakeholders who commented on the outcomes of the 2012 projects 
revealed  that  the  overall  coordination  was  an  issue,  also  due  to  the  absence  of  a 
budget foreseen for this coordination.  

Focusing on the strengthening space foundations and cross-cutting activities projects, 
the lower budget and lower number of partners (as compared to GMES projects) led to 
satisfactory  efficiency  (also  as  recognised  by  the  same  stakeholders  that  commented 
on GMES projects). As further reasons, it is worth mentioning that:  

  due to the relatively low budget available and strong competition, the 

proposals that were awarded with the grant were excellent and led to high-
quality projects; 

  EU officials reported that, as a consequence of the above, project partners 

were on average very committed to the projects. 

This  difference  is  confirmed  by  the  findings  of  the  case  studies  performed  within  the 
evaluation. In both geoland2 and SAFER (GMES projects with more than 50 partners), 
the  size  of  the  consortia  made  project  management  challenging.  Vice  versa,  no  such 
issues  were  reported  for  AGAPAC,  FRESHMON,  μFCU,  AEROFAST  and  BIOSMHARS, 
projects with a more limited number of partners. 

Under  the  SSF  pillar  and  with  particular  regard  to  science  projects,  an  issue  brought 
forward  by  three  interviewees  (all  with  expertise  in  scientific  projects)  is  the  lack  of 
continuity  in  the  majority  of  projects.    According  to  these  interviewees,  long-term 
plans are needed for most of the projects mainly because within current timeframes it 
is not possible to fully exploit project results.  

Especially in case of major projects (e.g. involving the development of a sophisticated 
telescope), interviewees from the scientific community suggested that higher budgets 
project  than  the  ones  currently  foreseen  would  be  required  to  enable  longer  project 
timeframes. A prioritisation of the most important, larger and more extended in time 
projects has thus been suggested. Stakeholders from advisory groups and committees 
noted  that  this  objective  could  be  achieved  by  taking  advantage  of  the  possibility 
provided  by  Horizon  2020  of  linking  projects  in  multi-annual  Strategic  Research 
Clusters. 

Moving to the evaluation of efficiency at  project level,  within the beneficiary survey 
participants  were  asked  to  indicate  their  level  of  satisfaction  with  administrative 
aspects.  The  majority  of  respondents  are  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the 
information  provided  on  programmes  and  calls  (73%),  further  marketing  and 
70 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

communication  (64%),  and  the  support  provided  to  project  teams  during  project 
execution (61%). As shown in Figure 32 there are also high levels of satisfaction with 
respect to contract negotiation timeframes and the clarity of the application process.  

Figure 32 Satisfaction of participant organisations with administrative aspects 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 542 responses. 

The findings of the case study are in line with the outcomes of the beneficiary survey. 
Despite the fact that areas for improvement were suggested by individual interviewees 
on  specific  areas  (e.g.  simplicity  of  reporting  procedures  in  AEROFAST,  timeliness  of 
contract negotiation in geoland2), overall satisfaction with administrative aspects was 
more than acceptable. The importance of the project leader in easing the management 
of administrative requirements was underlined: one of the interviewees reported that 
the  management  of  administrative  requirements  and  the  necessity  of  coordinating 
tight deadlines within a complex project proved to be challenging endeavours. In this 
sense,  the  interviewee  suggested  that  the  expertise  and  the  ability  of  the  project 
coordinator  represented  an  important  driver  for  the  successful  execution  of  the 
project.   

The  analysis  of  the  answers  by  the  subset  of  SMEs  shows  a  similar  degree  of 
satisfaction  as  compared  to  overall  responses.  Compared  with  the  whole  panel, 
participants  from  SMEs  are  more  satisfied  with  over  performing  aspects  (e.g. 
information,  marketing  and 
communication)  and  more  dissatisfied  with 
underperforming  ones    (timeliness  of  contract  negotiation  and  ease  of  fulfilling 
administrative requirements). 

71 

  6%7%7%15%9%11%38%47%49%46%55%61%0%20%40%60%80%100%Ease of fulfilling administrativerequirements during the projectThe timeliness of contract negotiationClarity / ease of use of the applicationprocessSupport to project teams during projectexecutionMarketing and communication about theprogrammeInformation about the programme and callsVery satisfiedSatisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedDissatisfiedVery dissatisfiedNot applicable 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 33 Satisfaction of SME participant organisations with administrative aspects 

Information about the programme and calls

7% 

64% 

Marketing and communication about the
programme

5% 

55% 

Support to project teams during project execution

13% 

49% 

Clarity / ease of use of the application process

7% 

45% 

The timeliness of contract negotiation

7% 

43% 

Ease of fulfilling administrative requirements
during the project

5% 

35% 

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Not applicable

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 111 responses. 

Respondents  are  relatively  less  satisfied  with  the  ease  of  fulfilling  administrative 
requirements  during  the  project.  It  is  to  be  noted  that,  even  if  this  is  the 
administrative aspect that performed the worse in the beneficiary survey, the  overall 
evaluation  is  positive,  with  more  than  75%  of  participants  to  the  beneficiary  survey 
are  “very  satisfied”  (6%),  “satisfied”  (38%)  or  “neither  satisfied  nor  dissatisfied” 
(29%). 

The  figure  below  shows  how  the  level  of  satisfaction  with  regard  to  this  question 
evolved  over  time,  elaborated  by  splitting  the  panel  of  beneficiaries  based  on  the 
identifier  of  the  call  they  participated  in.  The  results  show  that  a  decrease  of 
dissatisfaction  was  recorded  over  time,  with  “very  dissatisfied”  or  “dissatisfied” 
respondents  decreasing  from  more  than  35%  down  to  20%.  This  reflects  to  some 
extent  the  efforts  of  the  Research  Executive  Agency58  to  clarify  rules  and 
requirements, and to provide support to coordinators and beneficiaries during project 
implementation. 

58 The Research Executive Agency (REA) took over from the Commission the responsibility for programme 

implementation as of mid-2009. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure  34  Changes  in  levels  of  satisfaction  with  respect  to  ease  of  fulfilling 
administrative requirements during the project 

It  should  be  noted  that,  during  the  execution  of  the  programme,  corrective  actions 
were regularly taken to improve the ease of fulfilling requirements for beneficiaries. As 
a result, beneficiaries involved in the first calls are expected to exhibit a lower degree 
of satisfaction.  This indication is confirmed by the case studies (see e.g. AEROFAST), 
which  tend  to  focus  on  earlier  projects  that  have  already  been  completed.  In 
AEROFAST, interviewees suggested that the expertise and capacity of project leaders 
are  of  key  importance  to  support  project  partners  in  fulfilling  administrative 
requirements. In this respect, the following improvement actions were suggested: 

  Making online electronic distribution easier and simplifying electronic 

interfaces; 

  Further using info days and NCPs networks to better to explain financial 

aspects to candidates, beneficiaries, etc.; 

  Empowering the helpdesk. 

Focusing on implementation aspects, the beneficiary survey shows that satisfaction 
is  high  across  factors  such  as  the  international  scope  of  projects  in  the  programme, 
geographical  coverage,  the  nature  of  financial  support  available,  the  topics  covered, 
and the scale of projects. 

There  are  relatively  lower  levels  of  satisfaction  in  terms  of  the  encouragement  of 
gender  diversity59,  support  to  SMEs  and  the  support  for  the  inclusion  of  non-space 
partners, as shown in the figure below. 

59 Further information on Gender equality can be found in Section 0 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 35 Satisfaction of participant organisations with implementation aspects 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 535 responses. 

5.3 

Appropriateness of the level of funding 

Focusing  on  GMES,  the  amount  of  funding  allocated  to  GMES  was  evaluated  as 
appropriate.  According to national and international stakeholders, the support of FP7 
allowed for complementary funding for the build-up of the GMES-dedicated space and 
ground  infrastructure,  as  well  as  the  procurement  of  satellite  data  from  other 
contributing  Earth  Observation  missions  –  necessary  in  turn  to  develop  and  deliver 
preoperational GMES services.  

Furthermore, FP7 funding ensured that resulting services addressed the most relevant 
policy areas, especially when end user participation was encouraged. 

Focusing  on  Strengthening  Space  Foundations,  all  topics  of  FP7  Space  Research 
outside GMES actually received a relatively low budget, with the “Strengthening Space 
Foundations”  and  “Cross-cutting  Activities”  pillars  and  related  thematic  areas  being 
allocated only 43% of the total budget managed by the Commission. As a result, six 
interviewees  (mostly  EU  officials  and  members  of  advisory  groups  and  committees) 
remarked  that  in  particular  the  expectations  of  the  scientific  community  (but  also 
partially those of industry) had not been fully satisfied.  

On another note, five of the interviewed stakeholders (mostly industry representatives 
and European/national agencies) suggested that the topic of the  specific call was too 
wide,  leading  to  difficulty  in  focusing  on  research  priorities.  It  is  to  be  remarked, 
however, (as recognised also by some of the interviewees who raised this point) that 
this  dynamic is  due  to  the  EU’s  choice  to  focus  on  bottom-up  research  rather  than  a 
top-down approach, with both schemes having positive and negative aspects. 

The  AEROFAST  case  study,  for  example,  suggests  that  the  open  approach  of  FP7 
allowed  important  R&D  developments  in  the  field  of  planetary  and  space  assets 
defence before the launch of the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) programme. 

Nevertheless,  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  the  bottom-up  approach  foreseen  in  FP7 
can  present  issues  if  it  is  not  combined  with  sufficient  budget.  As  a  result, 
opportunities,  competition  and  the  variety  of  possible  solutions  to  the  scientific  and 
technological challenges are limited by the low  number  of projects being selected for 
funding. 

74 

  9%6%10%8%8%10%16%19%31%35%34%56%58%57%61%65%0%20%40%60%80%100%Support for inclusion of nonspace partnersSupport for SMEsEncouragement of gender diversityScale of the projectsThe topics covered by the call for proposalsThe nature of the financial support…Geographical coverage (e.g. EU MS, other…International scope of the projectsVery satisfiedSatisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfiedDissatisfiedVery dissatisfiedNot applicable 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

5.4 

Effectiveness of FP7 Space Research compared with other sources of funding 

Overall,  the  evaluation  of  FP7  Space  Research  in  terms  of  efficiency  vis-à-vis  other 
actions  (e.g.  ESA  programmes)  is  positive.  Different  categories  of  stakeholders  (EU 
officials,  representatives  of  national  and  international  authorities)  noted  that  FP7 
Space is more focused than existing alternatives on: 

  Avoiding prescriptive call text through an open call system. According to these 
interviewees, such rules have the effect of enabling good ideas to be proposed 
across a variety of topics and areas, but did not make FP7 the ideal instrument 
for medium to high TRL activities with specific technology and development-
related requirements. 

  Low-TRL type of and scientific space activities (in the Strengthening Space 

Foundation pillar). This has produced some benefits in some specific areas, e.g. 
exploitation of science data, and allowed the creation of research networks by 
connecting areas of scientific excellence across different Member States; 
however it has not directly supported European space industrial 
competitiveness. 

All interviewees  have  judged  positively  the  fact  that  budgets  distributed  through  FP7 
are  available  for  all  Member  States  –  as  opposed  to  ESA’s  programmes,  where  only 
the  countries  which  contribute  to  space  exploration  programmes  receive  funding  for 
national  scientists  and  companies.  The  rationale  is  that  interviewed  stakeholders  are 
of the opinion that excellence should be leveraged on across Europe.  

Specifically  for  strengthening  space  foundations  activities,  it  was  highlighted  that 
stronger  technical  expertise  (to  be  either  built  internally  in  the  Commission  or 
outsourced)  would  enable  better  selection  of  calls,  improved  monitoring  over  the 
project and control of the results. An additional effort was thus suggested in addition 
to  actions  already  implemented  by  the  Commission,  which  include  using  external 
experts for proposal evaluations and project reviews, as well as involving ESA experts 
in the review of FP7 projects. This finding emerged also from one of the case studies 
(AEROFAST). 

Finally, it  was  pointed  out  that  the  effectiveness  of  FP7  activities  would  be  enhanced 
by  ensuring  –  at  least  to  some  extent  –  the  accessibility  of  project  outcomes  and 
results  for  interested  stakeholders.  One  stakeholder  suggested  that  actions  such  as 
obliging project partners to maintain the project website for a certain period after the 
end of the project itself would be beneficial to this end. 

The  outcomes  of  the  beneficiary  survey  confirm  the  positive  evaluation  of  the 
effectiveness  of  FP7  vis-à-vis  other  actions.  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  the 
extent  to  which  FP7  Space  Research  actions  were  more  or  less  effective  than  other 
conceivable  European  actions  (e.g.  Galileo,  Copernicus,  other  themes  of  FP7)  and 
national  programmes,  across  different  proposed  factors.  The  majority  of  respondents 
state that the FP7 Space Research actions are more or equally effective in terms of 

  Geographical extent of collaborations (62%), 
  Multilateral nature of collaborations (60%); 
  Focus on applied research and demonstration (58%); 

For all the categories explored only 12% of respondents or less state that FP7 Space 
Research  actions  are  less  effective  in  comparison  with  other  European  or  national 
initiatives; however, it has to be noted that a higher percentage of respondents (41% 
on average, across all categories) did not provide a comparison. 

75 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure  36    Are  FP7  Space  Research  actions  more  or  less  effective  than  other 
conceivable European actions? 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on up to 511 responses. 

5.5 

Drivers of efficiency and sources of inefficiencies 

At the programme level, one  of the interviewed stakeholders reported that “research 
can  also  show  that  something  does  not  work…and  that’s  also  a  result”,  underlining 
that it is a challenging task to evaluate the efficiency of FP7 Space. Four stakeholders 
added  that  it  is  too  early  to  evaluate  this  aspect,  suggesting  that  the  peak  of 
acceptance  and  usage  of  the  results  of  FP7  projects  will  occur  in  a  few  years  from 
today,  as  this  requires  the  exploitation  of  the  results  as  well  as  the  creation  of 
awareness, culture and information.  

At  the  project  level,  as  shown  in  Figure  32,  the  most  critical  aspect  of  FP7  Space 
research (even if the overall results showed that more than 75% of participants were 
“very satisfied”, “satisfied” or “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”) lies in the difficulty of 
fulfilling administrative requirements. Beneficiaries interviewed within the case studies 
suggest  that  in  FP7  projects  the  coordinator  needs  to  have  strong  project 
management  expertise,  as  well  as  possess  the  necessary  capacity  to  provide 
administrative  and  financial  support  to  all  of  the  participants  –  implicitly  suggesting 
that large companies are better positioned than SMEs to participate as leaders. 

5.6 

Conclusions 

The  key  conclusions  from  this  evidence  building  block  suggest  that,  considering  the 
allocation  of  budget  within  the  programme,  the  amount  of  funding  allocated  to 
GMES was appropriate. The support of FP7 allowed for complementary funding for the 
build-up  of  the  GMES-dedicated  space  and  ground  infrastructure,  as  well  as  the 
procurement  of  satellite  data  from  other  contributing  Earth  Observation  missions  – 
necessary in turn to develop and deliver preoperational GMES  services. Furthermore, 
FP7 funding ensured that resulting services addressed the most relevant policy areas, 
especially when end user participation was encouraged. 

76 

18% 19% 22% 25% 33% 34% 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Efficiency and flexibility of the support provided Responsiveness of the programme to strategic needs of EU stakeholders Scale of financial assistance available to individual projects Overall programme budget Multilateral nature of collaborations Focus on applied research and demonstration Geographical extent of collaborations Better or more effective Equally effective Worse or less effective Do not know  
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

All  topics  of  FP7  Space  Research  outside  GMES  actually  received  a  relatively  low 
budget, with the “Strengthening Space Foundations” and “Cross-cutting Activities”.  As 
a  result,  the  expectations  of  the  scientific  community  and  partially  those  of  industry 
have not been fully satisfied.  

Looking  to  the  average  size  of  projects,  projects  in  the  field  of  Earth  Observation 
had nearly double the:  

  average budget (more than €5 million against € 2.67 million); 
  average participant ratio (13.2 against 7.9). 

as compared with other thematic areas. The difference in average project size had an 
impact  on  efficiency.  GMES  projects  were  sometimes  large,  leading  to  difficulties  in 
managing and coordinating consortia with more than 50 partners. This choice however 
was clearly motivated by the need to bring forward one single stream of activities for 
each service. 

Focusing on the strengthening space foundations and cross-cutting activities projects, 
the lower budget and lower number of partners (as compared to GMES projects) led to 
satisfactory efficiency. 

There  is  relatively  high  satisfaction  with  the  efficiency  of  FP7  space  with 
administrative  aspects  at  the  project  level.  While  there  are  specific  suggestions  for 
improvement  which  should  be  considered,  the  overall  assessment  seems  quite 
positive, even for traditionally quite difficult aspects such as administrative procedures 
where “only” one in four survey respondents expressed dissatisfaction. This is quite a 
positive  achievement  and  recommendations  for  further  improvement  should  be  seen 
in this context. 

A  second  conclusion  to  come  through  this  part  of  the  evaluation  concerns  more 
strategic aspects of FP7 space and in particular project timeframes. Projects that aim 
to  develop,  put  in  place  and  use  sophisticated  technologies  might  take  more  time  to 
develop than projects that, for instance, make novel use of an existing technology.  At 
the  same  time,  these  projects  might  generate  significant  added  value  for  future 
actions  in  follow-on  projects.  In  order  to  enable  longer  timeframes,  higher  project 
budgets would be required. 

The  difficulty  in  bringing  together  the  benefits  of  financial  scale  with  a  bottom-up 
approach  to  project  selection  (as  well  as  trade-offs  between  bottom-up  and  top-
down approaches) was highlighted during this part of the study. One of the key added 
values of FP7 is the critical mass in terms of financial resources that it provides. This 
fosters  alignment  of  research  priorities  at  the  national  level  and  helps  to  focus  and 
prioritise areas of particular interest to Europe. At the same time, the broad open call 
approach within the framework programme encourages the emergence of very diverse 
projects,  some  of  which  of  modest  size.  The  size  advantage  of  the  framework 
programmes  would  reinforced  by  more  specific  calls  that  outline  clear  priorities  for 
funding.  At  the  same  time,  the  competition  for  ideas  may  best  be  served  by  the 
current bottom-up approach to research funding.  

The  effectiveness  of  FP7  activities  would  be  enhanced  by  ensuring  the  accessibility 
of  project  outcomes  and  results  for  interested  stakeholders  through  different 
actions, such as obliging project partners to maintain the project website for a certain 
period  after  the  end  of  the  project.  By  contrast,  insufficient  knowledge  sharing, 
especially  in  the  Strengthening  Space  Foundations  domain  between  the  European 
Commission,  ESA  and  national  activities,  could  lead  to  inefficiencies  within  the 
execution of the projects. 

77 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

6. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 3: ACHIEVEMENTS – WHAT: DIRECT 
ACHIEVEMENTS - OUTPUTS 

6.1 

Geographical coverage 

The  programme  has  engaged  with  participants  in  53  countries,  including  all  EU28 
member states and a good cross-section of ‘Third countries with S&T Agreements’ and 
‘Candidate & Associated’ countries60. 

Figure  37  shows  the  distribution  of  FP7  Space  funding  by  geography,  for  the  top  10 
countries, according to the total EU contribution granted to each of them, in order to 
show which are the main participants countries.  

The  data  are  based  on  the  addresses  of  all  participating  organisations  and  not  just 
lead  partners:  CORDA  provides  information  on  budgets  per  participant  per  project.  
The  table  shows  that  the  top  10  countries  accounted  for  81%  of  the  total  EU 
Contributions, and these include most of Europe’s larger ‘space nations’, missing only 
Sweden.  The  top  10  countries  also  represent  71%  of  the  total  participations  (1,827 
out  of  2,534).    Furthermore,  those  top  10  countries  (by  budget)  have  also  acted  as 
project coordinators for 89% of the projects (228 out of 257 projects). 

Figure 37  Geographical distribution of FP7 space project portfolio (Top 10) 

Countries 

Kingdom 

France (FR) 
Germany (DE) 
United 
(UK) 
Italy (IT) 
Spain (ES)  
Netherlands (NL) 
Belgium (BE) 
Norway (NO) 
Finland (FI) 
Austria (AT) 

Total 
project  cost 
(in 
'000 
EUR) 

164,528 
130,382 

139,460 

90,888 
67,826 
45,530 
43,583 
30,830 
25,186 
21,625 

Total 

EC 
Contribution 
(in 
EUR) 

'000 

Number of 
participati
ons 

Percentage 
of 
participation
s  country  of 
project 
coordinator 

111,059 
93,206 

93,125 

63,008 
47,435 
33,425 
32,587 
21,381 
18,789 
16,639 

316 
319 

291 

274 
183 
126 
119 
59 
72 
68 

13% 
11% 

12% 

11% 
15% 
11% 
14% 
12% 
13% 
15% 

89% 

11% 
100% 

Sub-total (Top 10) 

759,838 

530,654 

1,827 

Others 
Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

165,505 
925,343 

119,386 
650,040 

737 
2,564 

Figure  38  presents  a  geographical  analysis  of  project  coordinators,  showing  the 
percentage of times an organisation from the country acted as the project coordinator. 

The  analysis  reveals  that  project  coordinators  were  based  in  22  participating 
countries,  out  of  the  total  53  participating  countries  (41%).  It  shows  a  majority  of 
those  22  countries  were  host  to  project  coordinators  in  10-15%  of  their  ‘national’ 
project participations.  This analysis and ranking tends to give a little more weight to 

60  The  figures  by  country  include  international  organisations  based in  these  countries  (e.g.  UK 
figures include the participation of ECMWF and Spanish figures those of the EUSC). 

78 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

smaller member states; for example, Greece was host to just two project coordinators 
within its 13 participations, which means it acted as project coordinator in 15% of its 
national portfolio of projects. Germany by contrast was host to 35 project coordinators 
among its 319 participations (11%), and therefore sits in the lower half of the ranked 
list. 

Most  of  the  countries  that  have  hosted  no  project  coordinators  are  ‘Third  countries 
with  S&T  Agreements’  and  ‘Candidate  &  Associated’  countries.    However,  several  EU 
MS  such  as  Poland,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Latvia  and  Lithuania  and  Malta  have  also  not 
undertaken this role. 

Figure 38  Countries according to coordination role (all countries) 

Percentage of times country acted as project 
coordinator 

EE
ES
AT
BE
IL
FR
CY
FI
PT
UK
NO
NL
DE
IT
SI
EL
SE
CH
IE
HU
CZ
DK

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

6.2 

FP7 Space Research outputs 

6.2.1 

Major research participants 

Figure 39 and Figure 40 list the top 50 participants in the FP7 Space Research Actions, 
according to total EU contribution to the projects in which they participated.  

National  space  agencies  and  laboratories  figure  prominently  in  the  list,  each  with  a 
significant  number  of  participations;  the  least  actively  engaged  organisations  in  this 
list  (eight  organisations  were  ranked  equal  at  45th  place)  still  recorded  eight 
participations each.  The list shows that many  of the most well-known players in the 

79 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

private and public EU research space sector are engaged in the “FP7 Space Research” 
programme.  

Figure 39 shows the values (e.g. total EU contribution in euros) while Figure 40 shows 
the  ranking  according  to  those  values.    The  ranked  list is  sorted  in  descending  order 
by the total value of the EU contribution. The figure also shows a ranking according to 
number  of  participations  and  a  ranking  according  to  the  number  of  times  the 
organisation has acted as a project coordinator (as a percentage  of the total number 
of participations). 

Both figures show that Germany’s national aerospace laboratory (DLR) ranked first in 
terms of number  of participations (64 participations in total = almost a quarter of all 
projects) and in terms of EU contribution (€27M in total).  The analysis of ranking by 
EU  contribution  and  participations  is  reasonably  consistent  across  these  50 
participants  (i.e.  countries  are  place  in  similar  positions  across  both  rankings); 
however,  the  propensity  to  act  as  project  coordinator  is  less  strongly  correlated  with 
either  EU  contribution  or  participations.    For  example,  DLR  is  ranked  first  on  EU 
contribution  and  participations,  but  ranks  only  12th  on  project  coordination  (around 
22% of its participations).  This suggests that DLR derives value from the programme 
whether it is driving a project or taking a less prominent role and working as a project 
partner.  If we look at the top 10 project coordinators, we see a stronger showing by 
RTOs  with  a  broader  technology  remit  than  space  alone  (e.g.  Tecnalia  in  Spain  or 
Joanneum  Research  in  Austria),  perhaps  reflecting  the  wider  relevance  of  space 
technology and data to other technical fields and application areas. 

Figure 39  List of top 50 participants in the FP7 space actions – Values 

Name 

EU 

Total 
contribution 
(EUR) 

Number 
participations 

of 

of 

% 
times 
organisation  acted 
as coordinator 

Centre 

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt 
(DLR) 
European 
Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) 
National 
Centre 
Scientifique (CNRS) 
MERCATOR OCEAN 

for  Medium-Range 

Recherche 

de 

la 

MET OFFICE 

Collecte Localisation Satellites Sa 

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) 

University of Surrey 

Ilmatieteen Laitos 

SPOT IMAGE (SI) SA (SISA) 

Centre 

Research 

(European 

Nederlands 

Meteorologisch 

E-GEOS SPA 
Koninklijk 
Instituut 
Joint 
Commission) 
European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) 
Institut  von  Karman  de  Dynamique  des 
Fluides (IVKDF) 
Meteorologisk institutt 
Natural  Environment  Research  Council 
(NERC, UK) 
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing 
Center 
(Stiftelsen  Nansen  Senter  For 
Miljoog Fjernmaling) 
Sweedish  Metereological  and  Hydrological 
Institute 
(Sveriges  Meteorologiska  och 
Hydrologiska Institut) 

Netherlands  Organisation 
Scientific Research 

For 

applied 

27,444,920 

16,172,365 

13,327,167 

12,977,106 

9,004,953 

8,128,616 

7,171,168 

6,500,213 

6,419,458 

6,174,394 

6,109,841 

5,903,034 

5,499,797 

5,466,733 

5,244,681 

5,240,205 

5,215,321 

5,186,148 

5,098,337 

4,982,228 

64 

15 

43 

5 

15 

8 

22 

12 

21 

6 

8 

17 

15 

11 

5 

11 

17 

10 

13 

17 

21.9% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

40.0% 

6.7% 

0.0% 

22.7% 

41.7% 

19.0% 

50.0% 

37.5% 

17.6% 

0.0% 

27.3% 

40.0% 

9.1% 

11.8% 

40.0% 

15.4% 

11.8% 

80 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

EU 

Total 
contribution 
(EUR) 

Number 
participations 

of 

of 

times 
% 
organisation  acted 
as coordinator 

Name 

Institut  Francais  De  Recherche  Pour 
L'exploitation De La Mer 
Astrium SAS 

Teknologian Tutkimuskeskus (VTT) 

Istituto Nazionale Di Astrofisica (INAF) 
Office  National  D'etudes  Et  De  Recherches 
Aerospatiales (ONERA) 
ASTRIUM ST 
Institut  D'Aeronomie  Spatiale  De  Belgique 
(IASB – BIRA) 
METEO-FRANCE 
Commissariat  à  l’Energie  Atomique  et  Aux 
Energies Alternatives (CEA) 
VITO 
(Vlaamse 
Technologisch Onderzoek N.V.)  
Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft 

Instelling 

Voor 

University College London (UCL) 

Fraunhofer 
Istituto 
Vulcanologia 
ACRI-ST 

Nazionale 

Di 

Geofisica 

e 

Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales  (CNES) 

Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut 

Thales Alenia Space Italia SPA 
Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der 
Wissenschaften E.V. 
Universite De Strasbourg 

Infoterra Limited 

Indra Sistemas S.A. 

GMV Aerospace and Defence Sa Unipersonal 

Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation 

University Of Leicester 

Thales Alenia Space France 

Isis - Innovative Solutions In Space Bv 

EUMETSAT 

Stichting Deltares 

Brockmann Consult Gmbh 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

4,953,818 

4,716,001 

4,675,012 

4,461,116 

4,434,973 

4,420,572 

4,405,533 

4,393,446 

3,967,383 

3,957,091 

3,870,093 

3,836,580 

3,628,234 

3,621,709 

3,619,022 

3,450,563 

3,299,818 

3,296,822 

3,287,994 

3,232,654 

3,213,798 

3,164,086 

3,151,109 

3,104,161 

3,081,336 

2,922,956 

2,865,842 

2,777,478 

2,745,466 

2,684,980 

7 

21 

10 

15 

11 

18 

15 

15 

11 

10 

10 

10 

13 

7 

9 

16 

10 

18 

13 

4 

9 

8 

11 

9 

11 

14 

6 

5 

7 

10 

14.3% 

14.3% 

20.0% 

26.7% 

9.1% 

5.6% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

18.2% 

20.0% 

40.0% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

14.3% 

22.2% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

16.7% 

15.4% 

25.0% 

11.1% 

25.0% 

18.2% 

44.4% 

9.1% 

21.4% 

0.0% 

20.0% 

28.6% 

0.0% 

Figure 40  List of top 52 participants in the FP7 space actions, various rankings 

Name 

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR) 
European  Centre  for  Medium-Range  Weather 
Forecasts (ECMWF) 
Centre  National  de  la  Recherche  Scientifique 
(CNRS) 
MERCATOR OCEAN 
MET OFFICE 
Collecte Localisation Satellites Sa 
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) 
University of Surrey 
Ilmatieteen Laitos 
SPOT IMAGE (SI) SA (SISA) 
E-GEOS SPA 
Koninklijk  Nederlands  Meteorologisch  Instituut

Rank  by  EU 
contribution 

Rank 
number 
participations 

by 
of 

Rank  by  % 
of 
projects 
where  it  was 
coordinator 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

1 

8 

2 

18 
8 
15 
3 
11 
4 
17 
15 

6 

12 

14 

28 

4 
25 
28 
10 
3 
15 
1 
5 

17 

81 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Name 

Rank  by  EU 
contribution 

Rank 
number 
participations 

by 
of 

Rank  by  % 
of 
projects 
where  it  was 
coordinator 

Meteorologiska 

and  Hydrological 
och 

Joint Research Centre (European Commission) 
European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) 
Institut  von  Karman  de  Dynamique  des  Fluides 
(IVKDF) 
Meteorologisk institutt 
Natural  Environment  Research  Council  (NERC, 
UK) 
Nansen  Environmental  and  Remote  Sensing 
Center  (Stiftelsen  nansen  senter  for  miljoog 
fjernmaling) 
Sweedish  Metereological 
(Sveriges 
Institute 
Hydrologiska Institut) 
Netherlands  Organisation  For  Applied  Scientific 
Research 
Institut Français de Recherche Pour L'Exploitation 
De La Mer 
Astrium SAS 
Teknologian Tutkimuskeskus (VTT) 
Istituto Nazionale Di Astrofisica (INAF) 
Office  National  D'etudes  Et  De  Recherches 
Aerospatiales (ONERA) 
ASTRIUM ST 
Institut  D'Aeronomie  Spatiale  De  Belgique  (IASB 
– BIRA) 
METEO-FRANCE 
Commissariat  a 
Energies Alternatives (CEA) 
VITO  (Vlaamse  Instelling  Voor  Technologisch 
Onderzoek N.V.) 
Joanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft 
University College London (UCL) 
Fraunhofer 
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia 
ACRI-ST 
Centre Nationale D'Etudes Spatiales 
(CNES)   
Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut 
Thales Alenia Space Italia SPA 
Max  Planck  Gesellschaft  Zur  Foerderung  Der 
Wissenschaften E.V. 
Universite De Strasbourg 
Infoterra Limited 
Indra Sistemas S.A. 
GMV Aerospace And Defence Sa Unipersonal 
Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation 
University Of Leicester 
Thales Alenia Space France 
Isis - Innovative Solutions In Space Bv 
EUMETSAT 
Stichting Deltares 
Brockmann Consult Gmbh 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

l’Energie  Atomique  et  Aux 

13 
14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
23 
24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

36 

37 
38 

39 

40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

8 
12 

18 

12 

6 

13 

10 

6 

16 

4 
13 
8 

12 

5 

8 

8 

12 

13 

13 
13 
10 
16 
14 

7 

13 
5 

10 

19 
14 
15 
12 
14 
12 
9 
17 
18 
16 
13 

28 
7 

4 

24 

22 

4 

19 

22 

21 

20 
14 
8 

24 

27 

14 

28 

16 

14 

4 
14 
28 
21 
11 

26 

28 
18 

19 

9 
23 
9 
16 
2 
24 
13 
28 
14 
6 
28 

Figure  41  presents  a  distribution  of  project  costs  and  EU  contributions  by  type  of 
participant, according to the classification provided by CORDA. Research organisations 
and  private  companies  account  for  74%  of  the  EC  total  contribution,  which  is 
consistent with the information shown for the top 52 participants. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 41  Budget allocated across participants, per type of organisation 

Countries 

Total 
project  cost 
'000 
(in 
EUR) 

Total 

EC 
Contribution 
(in '000 EUR) 

EC 
Contribution 
(%) 

Research organisations 

391,320 

283,501 

Private for profit 

298,172 

193,567 

Higher education 

181,189 

135,893 

Public bodies (exc. res & edu.) 

51,210 

5,225 

34,105 

4,170 

927,115 

651,235 

Others 

Total 

44% 

30% 

21% 

5% 

0.6% 

100% 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

6.2.2 

Cross-country links 

The  CORDA  data  show  that  FP7  Space  Research  projects  tended  to  include  a  slightly 
smaller number of participants in comparison with projects supported by other priority 
areas of the FP7 Cooperation Programmes (9.1 versus 10.5, respectively). In fact, the 
distribution  of  number  of  partners  on  FP7  Space  Research  is  highly  concentrated 
between 3-10 partners as shown in Figure 42 (60% of projects) 

Figure 42  Distribution of projects with more than one partner 

Other priority areas (excl. Space)

Space Research

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p
f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

56

69

Number of partners per project 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

FP7 Space Research has had a positive impact on the number of partners with which 
project  organisations  have  collaborated.  Respondents  to  our  participant  survey  
reported that they have worked, on average, with 19 different partners, of which 7.5 
were collaboration partners with which they worked before participating in FP7 Space 
Research, and 11.4 were new partners, i.e. to collaboration partners with which they 
have only worked their involvement in FP7 Space Research (see Figure 43). 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 43  Number of partners collaborated with before and after FP7 Space Research 

Total partners on average: 18.9 

7,5 

11,4 

Number of different
partners you have
worked with before FP7
Space Research

Number of different new
partners you have
worked since FP7 Space
Research

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 615 responses. 

6.2.3 

Publications and scientific outputs 

According  to  the  SESAM  data,  53  (52%)  of  the  101  FP7  Space  projects  that  have 
submitted a final report and been formally closed (as at October 2014) have reported 
at  least  one  publication,  in  addition  to  the  final  project  report.  Together  they  have 
reported  565  publications  of  different  kinds,  of  which  around  36%  are  articles 
published in higher-impact journals. 

Looking  across  all  FP7  Cooperation  Programme  priority  areas,  from  Transport  (0.8 
publications  per  project),  to  Security  (1.8  publications)  and  Nanoscience  (12.3 
publications),  the  Space  Research  programme’s  performance  falls  somewhere  in  the 
middle of the programme areas, as shown in Figure 44.    

Figure 44 – Average number of publications per project with a final report by priority 
area  

Health

 23,4  

Environment (including Climate Change)

All Cooperation

Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials
and new Production Technologies
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and
Biotechnology

Space

Energy

Socio-economic sciences and Humanities

Security

 1,8  

Transport (including Aeronautics)

 0,8  

 13,0  

 12,4  

 12,3  

 11,2  

 5,6  

 5,0  

 4,5  

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

84 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Compared to the average for the FP7 Cooperation Programme overall, however, where 
the average number  of publications per project with a final report is  12.4, the Space 
performs less well. 

Figure 45 presents an overview of FP7 space publications in terms of the total number 
of  publications  but  also  the  number  of  publications in higher  impact journals  and  the 
average  publication  per  (finalised)  project.  The  figure  compares  this  headline  figures 
with  selected  other  thematic  areas  of  the  Cooperation  Programme  and  for  the 
Cooperation Programme overall. 

Figure  45  Number  of  publications  per  project  with  final  report,  space  and  key 
comparators  

Priority area 

Projects 
with a final 
report 

Number of 
publications 

Publications in 
higher-impact 
peer-reviewed 
journals 

% 

Average 
publications 
per project 

98 

(including 

Transport 
Aeronautics)  
Security  
Space  
NMP  
All Cooperation Prog. 
Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

47 
565 
1,466 
9,060 

26 
101 
119 
731 

78 

21 

6 
204 
763 
4,536 

27% 

0.8 

13% 
36% 
52% 
50% 

1.8 
5.6 
12.3  
12.4 

The figure shows that a higher percentage of ‘Space’ publications are of high scientific 
standing,  based  on  the  publications  in  higher-impact  peer-reviewed  journals,  and  in 
comparison  with  areas  such  as  ‘Transport’  and  ‘Security’.  That  share  is,  however, 
lower in comparison with the average across all Cooperation Programmes. 

There are several potential factors that may explain this position, including: 

  How “publishable” the field of research is: highly publishable fields such as 

Health and Environment top the list; 

  Lead time to publishable discoveries or developments; 
  Nature of the research being performed; 
  Project size (Space actions are typically smaller in value in comparison with the 

average for several other thematic areas). 

Counting  peer-reviewed  publications  helps  one  to  understand  something  about 
publishing behaviour; however, it does very little to reveal the quality of that work.  It 
was  not  possible  to  carry  out  a  formal  bibliometric  analysis  for  FP7  Space  Research 
within  the  scope  of  the  present  evaluation.    However,  the  SESAM  monitoring  system 
does  record  information  about  the  journals  where  participants  have  published,  which 
provides some indication of the quality of the publications. Figure 46 presents a list of 
the  20  most  widely  used  peer-reviewed  journals,  ranked  in  terms  of  the  number  of 
publications  originating  from  FP7  Space  actions.    It  shows  a  skewedness  and  a 
predominance  of  journals  that  would  be  graded  as  medium-to-low  impact  in 
comparison  with  scientific  journals  overall,  based  on  size  of  their  readership  and 
citation behaviour.  This is perhaps understandable given that many of these journals 
are quite niche-oriented in their topical coverage. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure  46  –  FP7  Space  Research:  top  20  peer-reviewed  journals,  by  number  of 
publications 

Journal 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

Journal of Geophysical Research 
Astrophysical Journal 
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 
Astronomy and Astrophysics 
Physics of Plasmas 
Solar Physics 
Journal  of  Space  Weather  and  Space 
Climate 

8  Geophysical Research Letters 
9 
Atmospheric Environment 
10  Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 
11  Ocean Science Discussions 
12  Remote Sensing of Environment 
13  Astrophysical Journal Letters 
14  Geoscientific Model Development 
15  Ocean Science 
16  Space Weather 
17  Acta Astronautica 
18  Ocean Modelling 
19 
20  Journal of Marine Systems 

International Journal of Climatology 

Total 

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

Scientific 
Journal 
Rating 
1.9 
3.2 
2.3 
1.9 
1.1 
1.4 

2.6 
1.7 
1.3 
0.2 
2.8 
2.3 

1.3 
0.7 
0.5 
1.5 
1.6 
1.3 

No. 
of 
publications 

% 
publications 

of 

all 

39 
33 
29 
25 
17 
16 

14 

13 
12 
12 
12 
12 
9 
9 
9 
9 
8 
7 
6 
6 
217 

6.90% 
5.84% 
5.13% 
4.42% 
3.01% 
2.83% 

2.48% 

2.30% 
2.12% 
2.12% 
2.12% 
2.12% 
1.59% 
1.59% 
1.59% 
1.59% 
1.42% 
1.24% 
1.06% 
1.06% 
51.79% 

Figure  47  presents  a  ranked  list  of  journals  where  FP7  Space  projects  have  been 
published; it is sorted based on journal impact ratings as provided in the SESAM data, 
with multidisciplinary publications like Nature and Science sitting at the top of the list.  
This analysis shows that typically only one  or two papers (per journal) written based 
on  the  results  of  FP7  Space  projects  have  been  published  in  the  higher  impact 
journals,  which  again  may  underline  the  niche  quality  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
subject areas addressed by the programme. 

Figure 47 – FP7 Space: top 20 peer-review journals, by journal impact factor 

Title 

Nature 

Nature Physics 

of 

Journal 

Science 
International 
Computer Vision 
Astrophysical 
Supplement Series 
Proceedings  of  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  of  the 
United States 

Journal, 

Nature Geoscience 

Physical Review Letters 

Journal of Climate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10  Global Change Biology 

Discipline 

Multidisciplinary 
Physics 
Astronomy 
Multidisciplinary 

and 

Scientific 
Journal 
Ranking (SJR) 
14.5 

14 

11.2 

Computer Science 

7 

Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 

5.9 

Multidisciplinary 

5.4 

Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Physics 
Astronomy 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Environmental 

and 

5.1 

5.1 

3.7 

3.6 

No.  % 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

1 

1 

0.53% 

0.18% 

0.35% 

0.18% 

0.18% 

0.53% 

0.18% 

0.71% 

0.18% 

0.18% 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11  Earth-Science Reviews 

12 

Bulletin 
of 
Meteorological Society 

the  American 

13  Astrophysical Journal 

14 

15 

Sensing 

Remote 
Environment 
Computer  Vision  and  Image 
Understanding 

of 

Science 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 

3.4 

3.3 

3.2 

2.8 

2 

5 

0.35% 

0.88% 

33 

5.84% 

12 

2.12% 

Computer Science 

2.7 

1 

0.18% 

16  Geophysical Research Letters 

17 

Monthly  Notices  of  the  Royal 
Astronomical Society 

18  Monthly Weather Review 

19  Applied Physics Letters 

20  Astrophysical Journal Letters 

Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 
Physics 
Astronomy 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences 

and 

2.6 

2.4 

2.4 

2.3 

2.3 

Total 

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

13 

2.30% 

5 

2 

1 

9 

0.88% 

0.35% 

0.18% 

1.59% 

101  17.88% 

6.2.4 

Intellectual Property Rights 

FP7  project  partners  are  encouraged  to  develop  and  maintain  commercialisation 
strategies  as  part  of  their  project  activities.  In  many  cases  projects  provide  the 
foundation  for  one  or  more  members  of  the  partnership  to  apply  to  register  their 
intellectual  property  formally  through  a  patent  application  or  other  form  of  IP 
protection. 

The SESAM monitoring data show that seven FP7 Space projects, out of 101 projects 
that had been closed formally at the time of the analysis, had reported at least one IP 
right (IPR), and that those projects collectively have reported twenty IP applications of 
one kind or another (see Figure 48).   

Please  note  that  project  coordinators  are  invited  to  register  this  information  and  it 
may be the case that the data does not capture  the actions taken to protect IP in its 
totality. This not an issue that only concerns the Space Research projects, but all the 
thematic areas. 

SESAM  shows  that  eleven  of  the  twenty  disclosures  are  patent  applications.  This 
means that around 0.4 patent applications have been filed for each €10 million of EC 
contribution.  This  calculation  comes  from  the  fact  that  eleven  applications  have  been 
made for a total of €270million of EU contribution (equal to the EU contribution for the 
101 projects included in the SESAM data).  

The majority of patent applications relate to SPA-2 – strengthening the foundations of 
science  and  technology  –  while  space-based  applications  (SPA-1)  have  made  greater 
use  of  registered  designs  and  trademarks,  which  are  better  suited  to  novel  services 
(i.e. they are not technologies that can be protected by a patent). 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 48 Intellectual Property Rights reported in the FP7 Space Research programme 

Number  of 
projects 
with at least 
one 
IPR 
reported 

of 

Number 
reported 
Intellectual 
Property 
Rights 
(IPR) 

IPR  reported 
as  a  Patent 
Application 

of 

Number 
Patent 
Applications 
per EUR10M  

1 

Space-based  applications  at  the 
service  of  the  European  Society 
- SPA-1 
Strengthening  the  foundations 
of Space science and technology 
- SPA-2 
Cross-cutting activities - SPA-3 
Total 
Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

0 
7 

6 

6 

14 

0 
20 

2 

9 

0 
11 

0 

1 

0 
1 

These  twenty  IP  registrations  correspond  to  just  seven  organisations,  as  shown  in 
Figure 49, with German companies emerging as the most active proponents of formal 
IP protection and Astrium Germany the most active company. 

Figure 49 Companies reporting IP applications 

Organisation 
ASTRIUM GMBH 
ILMATIETEEN LAITOS 
UNIVERSIDAD 
MADRID 
SiCrystal AG 

POLITECNICA 

DE 

UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID 
SNECMA SA 

Country 
DE 
FI 

ES 

DE 

ES 
FR 

UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA 
Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

IT 

No. 
6 
4 

4 

2 

2 
1 

1 

This is not a particularly strong performance, relative to other parts of the Cooperation 
Programme  (see  Figure  50).    The  FP7  Space  Research  Actions  area  is  almost  at  the 
bottom  of  the  table  in  comparison  with  other  thematic  areas  within  the  FP7 
Cooperation  Programme,  according  to  the  number  of  projects  reporting  at  least  one 
IPR,  and  only  higher  than  the  ‘Socio-Economic  Sciences  and  Humanities’.    That  said, 
with  around  80%  of  the  programme  spend  devoted  to  demonstrating  novel  space-
based  services  –  often  to  support  public  services  –  it  is  perhaps  a  little  unfair  to 
compare FP7 Space with the other Cooperation Programme thematic areas, albeit the 
differences are really very pronounced.  

Figure  51  presents  the  details  of  the  type  of  IP  protection  sought  by  the  different 
organisations  and  a  description  of  the  elements  that  are  being  protected.  Many  of 
these relate to improved methods (e.g. algorithms) and software. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 50  Proportion of projects with at least one IPR reported by Thematic Area 

Socio-economic sciences and humanities

0% 

Environment (including climate change)

Space

Transport

Security

Food, agriculture and fisheries, and…

General activities

Health

Energy

7% 

8% 

11% 

12% 

15% 

17% 

27% 

31% 

Nanosciences, nanotechnology

39% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

Figure 51  Description of IP protection sought by projects 

Project 
Acronym 

of 

Type 
Intellectual 
Property 
Rights (IPR) 

GEOLAND2 

Utility models  

Description of the IPR (Subject 
and Title of the IPR) 

Country  or 
the  System 
the 
of 
Patent 
Application 

ATChMo 
classification algorithm 

K-2 

Land 

Cover 

GEOLAND2 

Others   

IncSIM  -  Application  for  indicators 
calculation in classified images 

GEOLAND2 

Utility models 

GEOLAND2 

Utility models 

GEOLAND2 

Patents   

forecasting 

SATChMo  K-2  Land  Cover  Change 
classification algorithm 
for  the 
Crop  yield 
NUTS2  agricultural 
in 
Europe based on BioPar, NDVI and 
fAPAR data 
MatSIM  –  Aplication  fo  authomatic 
image-to-image co-registration 

regions 

Organisation 
Filing the IPR in 
the Final Report 

ASTRIUM GMBH   

ASTRIUM GMBH 

ASTRIUM GMBH 

ASTRIUM GMBH 

Poland   

ASTRIUM GMBH 

GEOLAND2 

Patents   

SATChMo – Change detection tool 

Poland   

ASTRIUM GMBH 

ISP-1 

Patents   

HPH.COM 

Others   

EUSIC 

Patents   

EUSIC 

Patents 

ESAIL 

Patents 

for 
An  apparatus  and  method 
carrying  out 
in  a  controlled 
atmosphere  material  fatigue  tests 
in  a  high  cycle  regime  with  a 
controlled strain ratio 
Software  package  for  orbital  and 
attitude motion simulation of small 
satellites 

Producing a silicon carbide volume 
single crystal, comprises producing 
silicon carbide growth gas phase in 
crystal  growing  area  of  culture 
crucible and growing-off the silicon 
carbide  volume  single  crystal  from 
the gas phase by deposition 

Production  Method  for  a  Codoped 
Bulk  SiC  Crystal  and  High-
Impedance SiC Substrate 

Electric 
for 
spacecraft propulsion 

sail 

producing 

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

WIPO 

SNECMA SA 

UNIVERSITA 
DEGLI  STUDI  DI 
PADOVA  

SiCrystal AG   

SiCrystal AG   

China, 
Germany, 
EPO and USA 

ILMATIETEEN 
LAITOS 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

SME participation 

Participation  data  show  that  FP7  Space  has  managed  to  attract  interest  from  large 
numbers  of  space  SMEs  and  feedback  from  our  beneficiary  survey  shows  the 
programme  is  helping  to  capitalise  on  the  innovation  potential  of  these  smaller, 
dynamic businesses.  

Figure 52 presents the results of our analysis of FP7 participation statistics (CORDA), 
which  reveal  that  SMEs  account  for  around  18%  of  the  total  number  of  project 
participations  in  Space  Research  actions.    This  is  in  line  with  same  figures  for  the 
energy and ICT thematic areas of the FP7 Cooperation Programme, a little behind the 
figure for Security, Transport and Food and around 10 percentage points behind NMP, 
which outperforms all thematic programmes on this metric. 

Figure 52  Percentage of total SME participations, by priority area (%) 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Further analysis reveals the following statistics: 

  294 of the 1080 FP7 space participants were SMEs (27%); 
  179 of 257 FP7 Space projects had one or more SME participants (70% of 

projects), which is significantly more than the 32% for FP7 overall (Figure 53); 

  45 of 257 FP7 space projects were coordinated by SMEs (17%); however, 
participation of SMEs as coordinators or as participants is relatively low in 
comparison with other priority areas (Figure 53). 

SME participations have waxed and waned over the life of the programme, with SMEs 
involved  in  almost  80%  of  commissioned  projects  in  the  first  call,  perhaps  reflecting 
the small number of very large GMES projects, and dropping back to  around 60%  of 
all contracts launched in the second call (which launched a larger number of actions).  
The introduction of several strengthening measures, from 2011, helped to improve the 
attractiveness  of  the  programme  (the  measures  were  introduced  across  all 
Cooperation  Programme  thematic  areas,  in  order  to  ensure  the  Cooperation 

90 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Programme  hit  its  overall  SME  participation  target  of  15%  of  spending)  to  SMEs  and 
the share of Space Research Actions with one or more SME participants has settled at 
a level of around 70% of all projects (Figure 54). 

Figure 53  Projects with SME coordinator and SME participant, by priority area (%) 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

Figure 54  Projects with SME coordinator and SME participant, by call (%) 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014. Note: There were no calls in 2008. 

Turning  to  budget,  the  statistics  show  that  around  17%  of  the  total  EC  contribution 
has been allocated to SME participants (see Figure 55), which is above the 15% target 

91 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

for the Cooperation Programme  overall.  The average  EC Contribution per participant 
is similar for SMEs and all participant types (€ 232k and € 255k respectively). 

Figure 55 Grant allocation for SME participants 

Project  

Total 
costs 

'000 
EUR 

Total 
Contribution 

EC 

Total 
cost 
participation 

average 
per 

Average 
Contribution 
participation 

EC 
per 

'000 
EUR 

% 

'000 EUR 

'000 EUR 

Other 
organisations 

type  of 

785,829 

543,651  83% 

369 

SMEs 

141,286 

107,585  17% 

305 

Total 
927,115 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

651,235  100%  358 

255 

232 

251 

Furthermore,  78%  of  the  total  EC  contribution  to  FP7  Space  projects  has  been 
allocated  to  projects  that  include  at  least  one  SME  as  a  participant  (see  Figure  56).  
Participant  SMEs  are  located  across  the  EU  28  Member  States,  and  further  afield, 
however, the larger EU member states (France, Germany, Italy and the UK) dominate 
the SME address book. 

Figure 56 Grant allocation per project according to type of SME participation 

Project  

Total 
project 
cost 
'000 EUR 

EC 
Contribution 

Total 

'000 EUR  % 

Total 
average 
budget 
'000 EUR 

Average  EC 
Contribution 

'000 EUR 

Non-SME participation 

202,339 

141,032 

22% 

2,594 

1,808 

SME-coordinator 

109,348 

79,924 

12% 

2,430 

1,776 

SME-participant only 

615,428 

430,280 

66% 

4,593 

Total 
Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

927,115 

651,235 

100% 

3,607 

Figure 57  Origin of SME participants 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014 

3,211 

2,534 

92 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

6.2.5 

Gender 

The  full  CORDA  database  only  contains  information  on  the  gender  of  the  contact 
person of the projects for each participant who tends to be an administrative contact, 
and does not contain information on the gender of the scientific contact.  The SESAM 
data in contrast contains information on gender for the full project team, including for 
each of the following dimensions / indicators: 

  Reported workforce; 
  Scientific manager; 
  Experienced researchers (i.e. PhD holders); 
  PhD students ; 
  Work package leader ; 
  Others. 

Examining the gender split of those participating in the 101 projects contained in the 
SESAM  data  reveals  a  highly  male-dominated  structure.    As  illustrated  in  Figure  58 
below, the total reported workforce of the whole priority shows a 70% to 30% male-
to-female  split.  This  varies  slightly  across  roles,  with  scientific  manager  being  the 
most  male-dominated  role,  with  76%  male  to  24%  female.    Female  team  members 
have the largest presence as PhD students, at 29%. 

Figure 58  Gender split among roles in FP7 Space Research projects 

Scientific manager

Work package leader

Experienced researcher (i.e. PhD
holders)

Total reported worksforce

PhD student

Other

Male

Female

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

The  Space  Research  priority  area  does,  however,  compare  favourably  against  the 
average across all FP7 projects, where total female participation was last recorded at 
26% in the Sixth FP7 Monitoring Report. 

SESAM  data  also  contains  information  on  projects’  specific  Gender  Equality  Actions, 
including: 

  Designing and implementing an equal opportunity policy; 
  Setting targets to achieve a gender balance in the workforce;  
  Organising conferences and workshops on gender. 

In this area, Space projects perform a little less well (23% of projects, 23 out of 101 
projects  with  a  final  report)  in  comparison  with  other  priority  areas  under  the  FP7 
Cooperation  Programme,  where  26%  of  projects  on  average  had  a  specific  Gender 
Equality Action.   

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 59  Projects with specific Gender Equality Actions 

37% 

35% 

33% 

32% 

29% 

26% 

27% 

23% 

22% 

Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities

Health

General activities

Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials
and New Production Technologies

Environment (including Climate Change)

Average

Knowledge Based Bio-Economy

Space

Energy

Transport

Security

15% 

11% 

Source: SESAM Monitoring Data, October 2014 

6.3 

Conclusions  

6.3.1 

Participation in FP7 Space Research Actions 

  FP7 Space Research Actions have broad geographical coverage, albeit with a 

concentration on the EU’s leading ‘space nations.’   

  The top 10 participating countries, based on EU contributions, include all of 

Europe’s larger ‘space nations’ except Sweden (which ranks at no. 17).  This 
group accounts for more than 80% of the total EU Contribution to FP7 Space. 

  The programme has engaged with participants in 53 countries, including all 
EU28 Member States and a good cross-section of ‘Third countries with S&T 
Agreements’ and ‘Candidate & Associated’ countries.  Twenty-two Member 
States have taken a coordination role for one or more projects. 

  FP7 Space Research Actions have engaged with the EU’s leading space 

research organisations and space businesses, with the top 50 participants 
dominated by well-known laboratories and technology companies.  They have 
also been active participants within the programme, with the organisation 
ranked 50th still recording 10 participations and EU income of more than €2.6 
million. 

  Europe’s national space agencies and laboratories figure prominently in the list 
of participants, along with other major public labs and meteorological offices.  
Germany’s national aerospace laboratory (DLR) ranked first with 64 
participations and €27m in EU support (it has participated in almost a quarter 
of all projects).   

  The programme mainly supports applied research, with Research and 

Technology Organisations (RTOs) and companies accounting for almost 75% of 
participations, by income 

  Europe’s space primes are also strongly represented within the FP7 Space 

Research Actions, and indeed, Thales and EADS figure in the top 10 
organisations for FP7 Space Research overall.  The top 50 include a cross-
section of upstream companies, like Astrium, Spot Image and Surrey Satellites 
as well as services businesses like Infoterra or Mercator Ocean 

94 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  There are strong networking effects evident within projects, wherein our 

participant survey found that before the projects started participants had been 
collaborating on research and innovation activities with on average 7.5 
partners (possibly in different projects) and that this figure had risen to 18.9 
by the end of the FP7 project.  This extension of the average participant’s 
network of research collaborators also gets picked up in the judgement about 
key impacts on participant’s own organisations  

6.3.2 

Outputs of FP7 Space Research Actions 

  Space performs moderately well at best on the standard FP7 output metrics 
(e.g. publications, IPR), reflecting its focus on large-scale demonstrators of 
space-enabled services rather than the classic applied R&D projects more 
typical of the research of the FP7 Cooperation Programme. 

  Around half of the 100 or so FP7 Space projects that had been formally closed 
(as of October 2014), have recorded at least one publication, in addition to the 
final project report.  Together they have reported 565 publications of different 
kinds (5.6 / project), which is close to the median for all nine Cooperation 
Programme areas but around 50% of the arithmetic average, with 
Nanotechnology, Advance Materials and Processing (NMP) and Health driving 
up the overall average to more than 12 publications per project. 

  Those 100 projects report around 200 peer-reviewed articles (36%) published 

in higher-impact journals, which amounts to around two articles per project.  
Space sits towards the bottom of the rankings for the nine Cooperation 
Programme areas since the average level of scientific productivity for the 
Cooperation Programme overall is more than six articles per project, again 
driven by health and the other thematic programmes with a strong focus on 
the applied sciences. 

  Space sits at the bottom of the Cooperation Programme rankings in terms of 

the share of formally closed projects reporting at least one IPR, if one excludes 
the social sciences and humanities thematic area: 7% of projects report at 
least one IPR as compared with 39% for NMP. 

  Seven of the 101 fully ‘processed’ projects report one or more IPRs, 20 in total, 
of which 11 are patent applications. This information is self-reported by project 
participants and may not capture the totality of the actions around IP 
protection once the project finishes. This amounts to around 0.4 patent 
applications per €10m invested (i.e. EU contribution to those 101 projects).  
Astrium dominates the IP statistics. 

  FP7 Space Research Actions perform moderately well on SMEs.  Space 

committed around 17% of available EU budget to SMEs and has surpassed the 
Commission’s target of 15% of spending going to SMEs.  It sits in the lower 
half of the Cooperation Programme rankings, by share of EU grant to SMEs. 

  SMEs account for around 18% of project participations in Space Research, 

which is in line with the Energy and ICT thematic areas, a little behind Security, 
Transport and Food and around 10 percentage points behind NMP. 

  Around 70% of FP7 Space projects had one or more SME participants, which is 
10-15 percentage points behind the rest of the Cooperation Programme.  
Around 30% of all participants were SMEs 

  Gender balance is poor in absolute terms, but broadly in line with rest of FP7.  
Women account for around 30% of all Space participants, which is better than 
FP7 Cooperation Programme overall (26%), however, 23% projects report 
specific gender equality actions, which is somewhat lower than the figure for 
the Cooperation Programme overall (26% for FP7 overall). 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

7. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 4: ACHIEVEMENTS – WHAT: WIDER 
ACHIEVEMENTS – RESULTS AND IMPACTS 

7.1 

Achievement of participants’ objectives 

To  investigate  the  impact  of  FP7  we  asked  participants  to  rate  the  extent  to  which 
their own objectives for joining the projects had been achieved. 

Figure  60  shows  the  proportion  of  respondents  to  our  participant  survey  that  report 
benefits realised across a spectrum of benefit types, from tools to skills and markets.  
Stronger  international  partnerships,  reputations,  internal  capabilities  and  tools  stand 
out,  with  around  half  of  the  respondents  stating  that  their  involvement  with  the 
programme had delivered in full on these particular objectives.  Moreover, for many of 
those  participants  that  reported  their  objectives  were  not  yet  achieved,  optimism 
remains high for achieving these in the future. 

Figure 60 Achievement of stated objectives 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 485 responses. 

The  findings  of  the  case  are  in  line  with  the  ones  of  the  beneficiary  survey.  More  in 
detail: 

  Considering Geoland2, some partners successfully secured their involvement in 

several tender lots issues for Copernicus; a vast network of European 

96 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% To access international markets To access new markets To access international supply chains To improve our international visibility / reputation To improve our industrial links To improve our academic links To strengthen international partnerships To address funding gap To access missing, specialist expertise To improve my organisation ability and capacity to conduct R&D To develop and expand internal knowledge and research capabilities To develop new or improved processes To develop new or improved products and services To advance the status of knowledge globally To demonstrate new applications To develop new or improved tools, methods or techniques Markets and suppliers Networking Capabilities Development Fully achieved Somewhat achieved Not achieved yet but expecting to achieve Not achieved and not expecting to achieve Don't know  
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

institutions, national authorities, and private companies including SMEs was 
created; 

  Some SAFER partners were selected to implement the Copernicus Emergency 
Management Service; the coordinator developed procedures to improve the 
performance of data provision. Overall all partners interviewed maintained 
partnerships with other SAFER participants. 

  Focusing on AGAPAC, two interviewed partners hired additional resources, one 

improved its processes thanks to new equipment and one has launched a full 
service based on the developed technology ; 

  FRESHMON partners launched a commercial service thanks to the results of the 

project and are working on follow on activities. Different μFCU partners 
achieved various objectives, including being awarded follow-on grants, 
developing new technologies and raising the attention of ESA procurement, 
increasing capacity and adapting internal processes to space activities; 

  Moving to AEROFAST, some partners developed technologies and procedures 

which are now leveraged in follow-on projects, one organization hired 
additional resources and one developed a technology to be exploited also for 
non-space activities; 
In BIOSHMARS, most partners involved secured, thanks to the project results a 
collaboration with ESA on the activity of “Understanding and modelling of bio-
contamination process for exobiology spacecraft and manned vehicle”. 

 

This  strongly  positive  view  is  reinforced  by  the  FP7  monitoring  data.  Figure  61 
presents  data  taken  from  SESAM,  which  shows  that  project  officers  and  peer 
reviewers concluded that 98 space projects, circa 96% of the formally closed projects, 
had either fully achieved or achieved most of their objectives.  

Furthermore,  ‘Collaborative  Projects’  have  relative  more  successful  in  fully  achieving 
or  achieving  most  of  its  objectives,  in  comparison  with  ‘Coordination  and  Support 
Action’ (100% and 96%, respectively). 

Figure 61  Projects achieving their objects, by type 

Assessment 

of 

No. 
All 
Projects 

CP  -  Collaborative 
Projects  (including 
combination  of  CP 
and CSA) 

- 

CSA 
Coordination 
and 
Action 

Support 

Project has fully achieved its objectives for the 
period and/or has delivered unexpected results 
with significant immediate or potential impact 
(even if not all objectives mentioned in the 
technical annex were achieved)   

Project has achieved most of its objectives for the 
period with relatively minor deviations   
Project has achieved some of its objectives; 
however, corrective action will be required  

Project has failed to achieve critical objectives 
and/or is severely delayed  

50 

51% 

48 

45% 

2 

1 

2% 

1% 

42% 

58% 

0% 

0% 

Total 

101 

100% 

100% 

Source: SESAM Research Performance and Impact Reports FP7 Space, October 2014 

These  results  mean  that  FP7  Space  Research  has  had  a  strongly  positive  impact  on 
participants.    Our  surveys  show  that  the  programme  has  enabled  a large  majority  of 
all  participants  to  realise  most  of  the  project  objectives  they  set  out  to  achieve, 
thereby contributing to the effectiveness of the programme overall. 

97 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

7.2 

Space-based applications 

FP7  invested  around  €700m  in  space-based  applications,  underpinned  by  around 
€480m in EU contributions, which accounts for almost 80% of the programme’s total 
investment over the seven-year programme. 

The  greatest  achievements  relate  to  the  development  and  progression  of  operational 
GMES  services,  reflecting  the  concentration  of  funding  in  this  area  (around  60%  of 
total expenditure across all Space Research Actions). 

FP7  has  developed  numerous  specialised  services  in  land  monitoring  (e.g.  REDD: 
deforestation and forest degradation), marine monitoring (e.g. MYOCEAN: modelling / 
forecasting  ocean  currents  for  emergency  services;  short-term  forecasts  of  harmful 
algal  blooms  that  disrupt  fish  and  shellfish  production)  and  emergency  response 
management  (e.g.  rapid  mapping  during  the  response  phase  of  fires,  floods, 
earthquakes,  etc.)  The  success  of  the  activities  aimed  at  developing  GMES  core  and 
downstream  services  are  confirmed  by  relevant  case  studies  (SAFER,  geoland2  and 
FRESHMON). 

Based  on  feedback  from  stakeholder  interviews  and  the  beneficiary  survey,  FP7  has 
also  contributed  to  the  development  of  various  novel  space-based  security  services 
and sat-coms applications. 

As  is  the  case  for  any  technology  programme,  there  is  an  unavoidable  time-lag 
between  the  completion  of  a  service  development  project  and  the  implementation  of 
those services for the benefit of real customers.  Given the fact that a majority of FP7 
Space projects have only been recently closed or are still running, it proved somewhat 
difficult to identify many concrete examples of novel services having progressed to full 
commercial operation.  In that sense, the benefits of FP7 Space Research Actions will 
continue to unfold over the next 5-10 years. 

7.3 

Exploration of space as a platform for coordination 

FP7  Space  Research  Actions  provided  around  €50m  in  22  space  science  and 
exploration  projects.    The  Programme  has  supported  a  variety  of  interesting  projects 
for  example  bringing  together  large  numbers  of  leading  European  research  institutes 
to  develop  comprehensive  data  sets  (space-  and  ground-based)  and  associated 
analytical  tools  to  improve  /  increase  the  exploitation  of  space  data  (e.g.  SOLID, 
SPACEINN). These projects are smaller on average, with an EU contribution of around 
€2m. 

Stakeholders  confirmed  that  results  were  limited  due  to  the  limited  share  of  budget 
allocated  to  space  exploration  activities.  They  suggested  that  budget  allocation  to 
space exploration activities is quite valuable and should be increased in the future, as 
FP7  and  Horizon  2020  can  fund  top  class  researchers  from  any  EU  Member  States, 
even when that country is not currently an ESA Member State.  

As  mentioned  also  in  the  sections  above,  according  to  interviewees  data  exploitation 
from  scientific  missions  should  in  particular  be  allocated  more  funding.  Currently, 
datasets  from  scientific  missions  are  not  fully  exploited.  In  order  to  improve  this 
situation, several interviewees suggested that dedicated small budgets could be made 
available for organisations to propose new ideas on how to use these data. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

7.4 

EU scientific and technological capacity and leadership 

The  participant  survey  revealed  a  strongly  positive  view  of  the  programme’s 
contributions to EU science and technology, with circa 90% of 545 respondents stating 
that FP7 space had had a medium to high impact on the EU’s technological capabilities 
and international scientific standing. 

Figure 62 Impact of the FP7 Space Research programme on Community objectives 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on 545 responses. 

Our  stakeholder  interviews  (with  space  researchers)  were  somewhat  more  equivocal 
on this point.  The in-depth conversations revealed a concern that FP7 Space Research 
Actions had done rather less than might have been expected with a €700m budget to 
advance  the  international  standing  of  space  science  in  Europe,  which  is  largely  a 
function  of  the  balance  of  funding  and  the  fact  that  space  exploration  and  RTD 
foundations secured only around 20% of the total available EC contribution.  Indeed, 
there was a degree  of frustration that the admittedly important GMES project should 
have  been  funded  to  the  extent  it  was  through  FP7,  arguably  crowding  out  more 
conventional  research.  It  was  acknowledged,  however,  that  there  had  been 
meaningful progress in several areas, such as space weather, which was the object of 
several  calls  mainly  targeting  the  scientific  community.    As  a  last  remark,  academic 
stakeholders  were  pleased  that  Horizon  2020  has  a  separate  budget  line  for  GMES, 
leaving a larger share available for space research / space science activities. 

With  the  exception  of  research  performed  under  GMES-related  topics,  stakeholders 
suggested  that  the  amount  of  money  was  perhaps  too  limited  for  achieving  this 
objective of enhancing EU scientific and technological capacity and leadership. 

There  have  been  individual  success  stories,  however,  where  EU  officials  suggested 
that initially low budget projects and activities have generated a snowball effect on EU 
scientific  and  technological  research  leadership.    As  an  example,  debris  removal  was 
first  addressed  by  the  European  Commission  through  FP7  Space.  Results  obtained 
have led ESA to launch additional studies and Member States (e.g. Germany) to invest 
in the topic, which equate to financial gearing.   

Stakeholders  interviewed  have  mentioned  best  practices  of  how  the  research 
performance  was  strengthened  through  the  benefits  of  international  cooperation 

99 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other (please specify below) Capitalise on the potential of Europe SMEs to drive innovation in Space Support the development of spacebased applications that are more costeffective for To contribute to the achievement of an operational GMES To foster participation of the best experts in the scientific community independently form Increase European technological capabilities related to Space Increase international standing of EU scientific capacity in fields related to space Enable international space cooperation and collaboration Increase European scientific capabilities related to Space High impact Medium impact Low impact No impact Do not know Not applicable  
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

enabled by FP7. In the area of space weather, interviewed stakeholders reported that 
cooperation between the EU and the USA was  very fruitful, as the EU benefited from 
the  American  practical  experience  and  the  US  benefited  from  the  more  scientific-
oriented  approach  pursued  in  Europe.    In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  cooperation  was 
started before FP7 came into force, thanks to the funding available in FP7 the benefits 
could be scaled up. 

On  another  point,  one  interviewee  noted  that  many  projects  involve  PhDs  and  post-
doctorates, bringing a new dimension into the European research, which is a good way 
of creating competences in Europe. 

7.5 

Cross-cutting objectives  

7.5.1 

International engagement 

The FP7 Space projects have a good international coverage in terms of the location of 
their  participants.    The  great  majority  of  participants  have  addresses  in  the  EU; 
however, participation is spread across the globe with participants from countries such 
as  Russia,  China,  the  USA,  Canada,  and  Brazil,  which  suggests  the  ‘FP7  Space 
Research’  programme  is  supporting  the  formation  and  strengthening  of  international 
networks.  International  participation  (extra-EU)  is  slightly  lower  in  Space  in 
comparison  with  FP7  overall.  Only  43.6%  of  space  projects  included  at  least  one 
partner  from  outside  the  EU,  compared  to  68.1%  of  other  priority  areas  (excluding 
Space Research).  

The figures below show the geographical distribution of participants across FP7 Space 
projects and other priority areas. In all three maps, the distribution takes into account 
the size of the population in each country.  The grids in the maps (shown in different 
colours) are calculated based on 5 percentile groupings, with the dark red indicating a 
higher  number  of  participants  (per  1  million  inhabitants).  When  accounting  for 
population  size,  the  countries  with  the  highest  participation  are  Portugal,  Norway, 
Finland, Ireland, Iceland, Austria and Belgium. 

Figure 63  Location of participants (Space): Total number of participants per 1 million 
inhabitants 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014. Data on population has been obtained from the 
World Development Indicators (2012). 

100 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 64  Location of participants (FP7 Space projects): Total number of participants per 1 million inhabitants 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014. Data on population has been obtained from the World Development Indicators (2012). 

101 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 65  Location of participants (All FP7 projects): Total number of participants per 1 million inhabitants 

Source: Based on CORDA data, February 2014. Data on population has been obtained from the World Development Indicators (2012). 

102 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

7.5.2 

Capitalising on the innovation potential of SMEs 

The participant survey explored the innovation potential of including SMEs as partners in 
the  FP7  Space  research  programme.    These  questions  were  only  posed  to  non-SMEs. 
Respondents  identified  several  aspects  that  render  SMEs  as  valuable  partners.    They 
state that they add value in so far as they: 

  May build on the technology developed with further applications / products or 

services (72% strongly agree or agree); 
  Are suppliers of novel technologies (64%); 
  Are suppliers of specialist management or technical skills (58%); 
  Are end users of the technologies / applications under development (56%). 

Figure  66  The  value  that  SMEs  can  bring  to  FP7  /  H2020  projects  according  to  other 
participants 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on up to 401 responses. 

Opinion  is  less  clear-cut  as  regards  the  challenges  involved  in  including  SMEs  as 
partners.  The  majority  of  (non  SME)  respondents  (54%)  agree  or  strongly  agree  that 
SMEs  struggle  with  the  FP’s  administrative  requirements.    Additionally,  47%  of 
respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  SMEs  tend  to  want  to  focus  on  narrower 
application areas as compared with larger businesses or research organisations. 

Other  aspects  show  divided  opinions  with  similar  shares  of  respondents  indicating  that 
they agree or disagree. This includes the following proposed aspects: 

  whether SMEs would tend to be wary about their ability to play an equal or 

appropriate role within a partnership; 

  whether FP7 / H2020 would be too long term for many SMEs; 
  whether SMEs would be less attracted by international projects. 

103 

  10%6%8%9%14%13%17%16%17%30%35%38%42%45%47%57%0%20%40%60%80%100%OtherChallenge established thinking and norms(change agents)Would satisfy the requirements of Horizon 2020Are key actors in other parts of the internationalsupply chainAre end users of the technologies / applicationsunder developmentAre suppliers of specialist management ortechnical skillsAre suppliers of novel technologiesMay build on the technology with furtherapplications / products or servicesStrongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly disagree 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 67 Potential challenges that may arise from including SMEs in projects according 
to other participants 

SMEs struggle with the FP’s administrative 
requirements 

18% 

37% 

SMEs tend to want to focus on narrower
application areas as compared with larger…

7% 

SMEs struggle with the FP’s speed of payment 

12% 

SMEs tend to be susceptible to shortterm

changes, which can make it harder to sustain a…

4% 

40% 

32% 

38% 

SMEs tend to be wary of their ability to protect
their IP within an extended partnership

6% 

29% 

SMEs are less attracted by international projects

FP7 / H2020 is too long term for many SMEs

SMEs tend to be wary about their ability to play
an equal / appropriate role within a partnership

28% 

24% 

23% 

Other

10% 

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on up to 401 responses 

Focusing  on  the  extent  to  which  FP7  Space  contributed  to  capitalising  on  the 
potential  of  Europe’s  SMEs  to  drive  innovation  in  space,  three  stakeholders 
remarked  on  the  structure  of  the  space  industry  in  general  and  the  dominance  of  the 
small  number  of  very  big  players  (primes),  which  have  similarly  dominated  FP7  Space 
Research Actions and have the power to decide whether and how to involve SMEs. 

As  a  consequence,  these  stakeholders  suggested  that  the  participation  of  SMEs  in  most 
calls  has  been  necessarily  limited,  and  their  contribution  subordinated  to  the  role 
assigned  by  large  project  primes.    This  dynamic  has  de  facto  limited  the  possibility  to 
fully exploit the innovative potential of SMEs.  

This  is  an  issue  because  all  stakeholders  recognise  that  SMEs  are  of  key  importance  in 
space:  the  vast  majority  of  innovative  technologies  comes  from  SMEs  specialising  in  a 
particular  niche.    Moreover,  SMEs  provide  many  small  components  that  cannot  be 
developed  by  others,  so  they  can  cause  critical  bottlenecks  in  case  they  run  out  of 
business,  which  is  likely  to  happen  if  their  business  relationship  with  a  large  prime  is 
discontinued. Interviewed stakeholders have judged positively the impact of SME Specific 
Research SPA (Subprogramme Area). To resolve the issue of increasing the participation 
of  SMEs,  however  they  also  suggested  that  the  allocated  budget  to  these  SPAs  could 
have been higher. 

As  a  further  outcome  of  the  consultation,  stakeholders  provided  a  series  of  suggestions 
on  how  to  improve  the  involvement  of  SMEs.  The  suggestions  are  based  on  the 
characteristics of the space industry (share of profit is typically in the 5-8% range, R&D 
activities are very risky and lengthy) and include: 

  Eliminating the co-funding mechanism in favour of 100% grants; 
  Developing long-term plans to encourage SMEs to participate in the FP7; 
  Project timeframes could be longer to provide continuity of business for the 

industry; 

104 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

 

Increasing the budget for SMEs specific calls. In the case of FP7 Space, the 
budget reserved for SME specific calls was not in line with the demand for co-
financing by SMEs, resulting in low success rates and subsequently discouraging 
SMEs from further participating; 

  Ensuring that SMEs can successfully retain the IP outcomes of their work, 

 

especially in projects led by large primes; 
In particular for SSF activities, it should be ensured that SMEs retain information 
on the technical framework and the technical implications of the activities, as 
know-how is often lacking. This could be possible before the project by increasing 
the technical expertise of evaluators so that they can properly assess the know-
how and the technical excellence of SMEs and during the project by having the 
prime contractor taking a coaching role. 

  More in general, reducing the complexity of the call for proposal mechanisms and 
of administrative procedures within the project, which can represent a significant 
source of costs for SMEs; 

As a final remark, it is to be noted that interviewed stakeholders were very satisfied with 
the innovations related to SMEs introduced in Horizon 2020. 

7.6 

The competitiveness of the European space industry 

FP7 Space Research has provided substantial funding to EU space companies (circa €300 
million) for the development of new technologies and services, and in so doing is helping 
to underpin the innovation capacity and international competitiveness of  Europe’s space 
businesses, which continue to perform strongly in competition against their international 
counterparts in commercial and institutional markets both in Europe and the rest of the 
world61. 

Unfortunately, the publicly available statistics for the space economy do not present data 
–  supply  or  demand  –  that  align  with  the  space-enabled  applications  and  downstream 
services  covered  by  the  FP7  Space  Research  Actions,  and  as  such  provide  no  basis  for 
testing  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  is  making  or  holding  ground  internationally  in  the 
areas being supported. 

In  order  to  judge  the  programme’s  contribution  to  industrial  competitiveness,  we  have 
therefore  had  to  rely  on  our  beneficiary  survey,  where  around  25%  of  our  industrial 
respondents  stated  that  the  programme  has  had  a  medium  to  high  impact  on  their 
international competitiveness. On balance, we judge this to be a good result.  

Figure 68 presents feedback from our industrial respondents, and shows the programme 
is  judged  to  be  delivering  meaningful  benefits  to  participants  across  a  wide  range  of 
technical  and  commercial  areas.  In  the  survey,  impacts  are  judged  most  positively  on 
relationships and networks, internal knowledge and capabilities as well as reputation and 
image. 

Figure 69 presents the same analysis, but just for participating SMEs (around 85% of the 
total number of business responses received).  It  shows a broadly similar distribution as 
regards the ranking of benefits derived, but a higher overall degree of satisfaction.   

61 Aerospace and Defence Industries of Europe - Key Facts and Figures for 2012 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 68  Impact of FP7 Space Research programme on companies (all sizes) 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on up to 157 responses. 

Figure 69  Impact of FP7 Space research programme (only SMEs) 

Source: Beneficiary survey (2014). Based on up to 157 responses. 

This is possibly a reflection of size differences, wherein a €0.5m grant is likely to make a 
bigger  difference  to  a  small  company  with  a  €2om  turnover  than  it  is  to  a  large  prime 
with a €2 billion turnover.  There is also possibly a feature relating  to the sector’s deep 
supply chains and the dominance of large primes within those commercial relationships, 
where a programme like FP7, with its large transnational projects can do a great deal for 
the visibility of smaller  firms and their resulting inclusion within subsequent commercial 

106 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

contracts.    The  net  impact  on  industrial  competitiveness  is  not  clear  cut,  however,  as 
there  is  likely  to  be  an  element  of  displacement  here,  where  new  relationships  forged 
between primes and their latest suppliers are likely to be at the expense of other lower-
tier contractors, possibly also located within the EU. 

Turning to our stakeholder interviews and considering the provision of improved services 
to  citizens  through  space-enabled  applications  and  the  commercial  exploitation  of  the 
opportunities  presented  by  space  exploration  and  science,  as  mentioned  above,  GMES 
has already proven its significant impact in helping EU and non EU citizens in dealing with 
emergency situations.  As a case in point, the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), 
part of the GMES Emergency Management Service (now Copernicus), has been delivering 
early warnings of possible major flooding events to member states’ national hydrological 
and meteorological services since 2012. Those alerts have helped anticipate and prepare 
for floods in several member states, from Scotland to Hungary and Romania. 

Moreover,  GMES  has  introduced  many  new  opportunities  for  market  players  as  several 
applications  were  developed  through  FP7  in  different  areas.  As  an  example,  it  was 
suggested that the ASIMUTH project showed how Earth Observation data could be used 
by  salmon  farmers,  since  satellite  maps  can  be  used  to  help  salmon  farmers  deal  with 
algae blooms by creating an alert system that will help detect the problem and deal with 
it.  An EU official noted, however, that the maturity of most of these services is not yet 
full.  In  the  example  of  the  service  mentioned  above,  there  are  concerns  regarding 
current costs of the application and whether the farmers are interested in paying for this 
kind of alert system.  

Focusing  on  the  exploitation  of  the  opportunities  presented  by  space  exploration  (not 
necessarily  only  on  commercial  ones),  it  was  widely  agreed  that  in  the  future  a  priority 
will be the exploitation of scientific data. Stakeholders suggested that this area deserves 
significant funding, since ESA scientific missions are able to gather huge amount of data 
that should then be exploited (potential for increasing FP7 space research added value). 

7.7 

Contribution to EU Space Policy 

7.7.1 

The objectives 

Space  systems  and  space–based  technologies  are  increasingly  important  for  the 
European businesses and citizens. Streams of funding support are not only crucial for the 
development of specific services, such as GMES, also for strategic reasons. As outlined in 
the  Interim  Evaluation  of  FP7  Space,62  the  continuous  development  of  the  space 
technologies  is  expected  to  contribute  to  reaching  a  wide  range  of  policy  objectives 
including: 

  European non-dependence – allowing the EU to develop critical infrastructure and 
know-how to ensure European non-dependency on other Space actors (e.g. USA, 
Russia ); 

  Sustainable Development – e.g. information-gathering in support of the Kyoto 
Protocol monitoring and actions resulting from the Johannesburg Summit on 
sustainable development; 

  Common Foreign and Security Policy – e.g. supporting border control, conflict 

prevention and crisis management; 

62CSES 

(2011): 

Interim 

Evaluation 

of 

FP7 

Space 

available 

at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/fp7_space_research_2011_en.pdf 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  Lisbon Strategy – e.g. through better opportunities for space-related industries 
and the development of the space component of geo-information services, 
improved access to space based data for services. 

The  White  Paper  on  Space63  defined  an  action  plan  for  a  European  Space  Policy  to 
address  several  EU  needs  in  the  areas  of,  for  example,  transport,  environment, 
agriculture,  and  telecommunications.    This  publication  was  followed  by  years  of 
consultation with key stakeholders, which resulted in the adoption of the European Space 
Policy, which was published by the Commission in April 200764. The strategic mission of 
European Space Policy was formulated on the peaceful exploitation of Outer Space by all 
states and aimed to: 

  Develop and exploit space applications serving Europe's public policy objectives 
and the needs of European enterprises and citizens, including in the field of 
environment, development and global climate change; 

  Meet Europe's security and defence needs as regards space; 
  Ensure a strong and competitive space industry which fosters innovation, growth 
and the development and delivery of sustainable, high quality, cost-effective 
services; 

  Contribute to the knowledge-based society by investing strongly in space-based 

science, and playing a significant role in the international exploration endeavour; 

  Secure unrestricted access to new and critical technologies, systems and 
capabilities in order to ensure independent European space applications. 

The  Communication  also  provided  for  the  establishment  of  appropriate  funding 
arrangements for the operational phase of GMES. There are two key policy objectives in 
respect of the development of GMES. First, by 2008, the first GMES operational services 
were to be available and secondly, by 2012, the Council was to adopt the necessary acts 
based  on  the  Commission's  proposal  and  ESA  should  implement  the  first  generation  of 
GMES-dedicated satellites (Sentinels). 

GMES  is  Europe's  flagship  space  programme  for  continuous  and  expandable  Earth 
observation services.  It was determined that FP7 would build on the experiences gained 
during FP6 to ensure that GMES is successful, in particular building on the foundation of 
GMES  Fast  Track  Services.    The  development  of  core  GMES  services  in  areas  such  as 
land, ocean, and atmosphere monitoring was meant to lead to improvements in Europe’s 
capabilities  to  monitor  climate  change,  pollution,  land  and  wide  maritime  areas  (CSES, 
2011). 

7.7.2 

The impacts 

Considering  the  support  to  the  EU  influence  in  international  space  policy  and 
related geopolitics, all interviewed stakeholders highlighted the strong positive impact 
of  GMES.  For  example,  EU  officials  referred  to  GMES  contribution  to  several  other 
emergencies  including,  for  example,  earthquakes  around  the  world  and  the  Icelandic 
volcanic cloud.   

63  EC  (2003):  Space:  a  new  European  frontier  for  an  expanding  Union;  An  action  plan  for  implementing  the 
http://eur-
673 

European 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0673en01.pdf 

available 

(2003) 

Space, 

COM 

final 

at: 

64  EC 

(2007):  European  Space  Policy,  COM 

(2007)  212 

final  available  at:  http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0212:FIN:EN:PDF 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

It  was  underlined  that  the  support  for  GMES  has  enabled  it  to  be  the  European 
contribution  to  GEOSS  (Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems),  an  international 
public  infrastructure  using  land,  sea,  air  and  space-based  Earth  observation  systems  to 
provide  comprehensive  environmental  data,  information  and  analyses.    This  systematic 
collection  of  environmental  data  over  an  extended  period  is  universally  admired  in  the 
international community. 

This  allowed  GMES  and  its  services  to  become  an  international  reference  point.  As  an 
example, during the nuclear power plant emergency in Fukushima, support was provided 
by  MYOCEAN  to  help  understand  the  dynamic  of  sea  currents  to  assess  where  the 
radiation  would  have  impacted.  As  an  additional  example,  the  United  Nations  actually 
recognised  the  ability  of  SAFER  project  to  rapidly  provide  support  to  assistance  in  the 
event  of  earthquake  in  Haiti,  as  emerged  from  both  high-level  interview  and  the 
dedicated case study. 

The  seeds  of  EU  participation  in  international  space  policy  and  geopolitics  have  been 
planted  through  more  than  20  projects  funded  on  topics  for  international  cooperation 
with Russia, Africa, Ukraine, China, etc. on topics such as GMES services, re-entry, space 
debris,  lightweight  materials,  etc.  These  projects  are  judged  to  be  important  by 
interviewed  stakeholders  (in  particular  EU  officials)  because  they  showed  actual 
commitments from the EU side in terms of budget allocation, thus creating the necessary 
preconditions for cooperation on further space activities. 

FP7  Space  has  also  supported  various  science  projects  exploiting  the  data  from  various 
international  space  missions,  operated  by  ESA  and  in  several  cases  by  ESA  and  other 
major  space  agencies  like  NASA  (e.g.  STORM  and  work  on  solar  wind,  using  data  from 
NASA / ESA Ulysses spacecraft). 

Stakeholders  suggest  that  the  benefits  of  these  activities  could  be  further  reaped  by 
being more specific about the EU’s international objectives, perhaps choosing one or two 
topics – space debris perhaps – where it has the potential to make a major contribution 
to policy and practice globally, and which would accelerate the rate at which other space 
nations and agencies come to the view that the EU is a leading player in the international 
space policy arena in its own right. 

From  the  technological  and  industrial  point  of  view,  interviewed  stakeholders  from 
national and international agencies remarked that the more technological development is 
supported  by  coordinated  efforts,  the  more  the  industrial  sector  will  increase,  and 
consequently the capability of EU on the international stage will become more influential. 
They  suggest  that  the  Commission  would  thus  need  to  have  a  long  term  plan,  i.e.  a 
strategy outlining how this goal should be reached. 

Interviewees  also  cited  examples  related  to  Strengthening  Space  Foundations.    For 
instance, CLEANSPACE produced results on space debris removal that were presented to 
the  USA,  which  took  the  work  forward.  This  has  created  the  opportunity  for  the  EU  to 
have a more active participation in the international space policy dialogue in the future. 

Moving specifically to critical technologies, interviewees suggested that one important 
outcome in this area was the creation of the list of critical technologies as a joint effort of 
EU,  EDA  and  ESA,65  which  has  enabled  the  partners  to  reduce  possible  overlaps.  One 
stakeholder remarked that the decision-making process regarding critical technologies is 
too  slow,  leading  to  the  risk  of  technologies  being  no  longer  critical  when  they  are 

65 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/fp7/fp7-space-2011-1/30140-ec-esa-

eda_critical_space_technologies_for_european_strategic_non-dependence_-
_list_of_urgent_actions_2010_2011_en.pdf 

109 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

developed.  To  resolve  this issue,  the  interviewee  highlighted  the  need  for  a  clear  policy 
driving the choice of the technologies. It should be noted that this issue didn’t prevent all 
projects  from  achieving  advancements.  As  an  example,  one  of  the  case  studies  (μFCU) 
revealed  successful  efforts  in  the  development  of  valves  previously  produced  only  by 
non-European players.  

Considering  more  generally  the  strategic  objective  of  non-dependence,  stakeholders 
suggested  that  the  co-funding  mechanism  is  probably  not  the  most  suitable  one  to 
develop  technologies  that  don’t  have  a  large  market  outside  strategic  needs.    In  this 
sense, procurement was suggested as a valid alternative. 

7.8 

Conclusions  

FP7  Space  Research  has  made  substantial  positive  contributions  to  both  of  its 
overarching (general) objectives, and as such we judge it to have been: 

  An effective programme overall for the development of space-enabled applications 

for the benefit of EU citizens 

  Quite effective for supporting the competitiveness of the European space industry 

FP7  Space  Research  has  also  made  positive  contributions  to  each  of  its  specific 
objectives,  especially  to  the  development  of  space-based  applications  and  space 
research, broadly defined. 

FP7 Space Research has had a strongly positive impact on participants. The programme 
has enabled a large majority of participants to realise most of the project objectives they 
set  out  to  achieve.  Stronger  international  partnerships,  reputation,  internal  capabilities 
and  tools  stand  out.  For  many  of  those  participants  that  reported  their  objectives  were 
not yet achieved, optimism remains high for achieving these in the future. 

This strongly positive view is reinforced by the FP7 monitoring data.  Project officers and 
peer  reviewers  concluded  that  98%  of  the  101  formally  closed  projects  have  achieved 
their objectives. 

FP7  space  has  made  substantial  progress  on  space-enabled  applications.  The  greatest 
achievements  relate  to  the  development  and  progression  of  operational  GMES  services, 
reflecting to some extent the concentration of funding in this area; 

FP7 has developed numerous specialised services in: 

  Land monitoring (e.g. REDD: deforestation and forest degradation) 
  Marine monitoring (e.g. MYOCEAN: modelling / forecasting ocean currents for 

emergency services; short term forecasts of harmful algal blooms that disrupt fish 
and shellfish production)  

  Emergency response management (e.g. rapid mapping during the response phase 

of fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) 

FP7  Space  Research  Actions  invested  around  €50m  in  22  space  science  and  exploration 
projects.  It has supported a variety of interesting projects for example bringing together 
large  numbers  of  leading  European  research  institutes  to  develop  comprehensive  data 
sets (space- and ground-based) and associated analytical tools to improve / increase the 
exploitation  of  space  data  (e.g.  SOLID,  SPACEINN).  These  projects  are  smaller  on 
average, with an EU contribution of around €2m.  

110 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

FP7  Space  has  also  supported  various  science  projects  exploiting  the  data  from  various 
international  space  missions,  operated  by  ESA  and  in  several  cases  by  ESA  and  other 
major  space  agencies  like  NASA  (e.g.  STORM  and  work  on  solar  wind,  using  data  from 
NASA / ESA Ulysses spacecraft). The programme has also supported horizontal activities, 
like technology road-mapping. 

The impact of the programme overall on Europe’s space community is quite low. Several 
interviewees  argued  that  effects,  while  undoubtedly  worthwhile,  were  inevitably 
somewhat limited due to the absolute quantum of budget allocated to space science and 
exploration activities. 

Currently, datasets from many ESA and other scientific space missions are not fully taken 
advantage  of  and  small  budgets  could  be  made  available  for  organisations  to  propose 
new ideas on how to use these data. 

In  principle,  FP7  should  provide  a  more  accessible  platform  for  research  institutes  in 
countries  with  smaller  space  research  communities,  which  may  not  be  members  of  ESA 
or  otherwise  unlikely  to  win  science  contracts  against  the  best  in  Europe.    Indeed  FP7 
Space is clearly supporting research in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania 
and  as  such is  building links  amongst  leading scientific institutions  as  well  as improving 
coordination and exploitation of all Europe’s space missions. 

Overall,  the  individuals  surveyed  and  interviewed  believe  that  FP7  Space  has  had  a 
strong impact on EU scientific and technological capacity and leadership.  More than 90% 
of our survey respondents state that FP7 Space has had a medium to high impact on the 
EU’s technological capabilities and international standing.  The results of our stakeholder 
interviews  were  more  equivocal:  the  work  on  GMES  was  seen  as  crowding  out  space 
research and therefore limiting impact. 

FP7  Space  is  supporting  the  EU  space  community  in  developing  and  strengthening  its 
extra-EU partnerships and networks, and in so doing is contributing to the realisation of 
Cross-Cutting  Objective  1:  International  engagement  (extra-EU).  FP7  Space  has 
delivered ‘good to reasonable’ engagement with other major space faring nations beyond 
the  EU  (collaborations  with  Canada,  USA,  Russia  and  South  Africa  are  most  common, 
links  with  Brazil,  China,  India  and  Japan  are  evident,  but  are  less  common).  FP7  Space 
has  a  less  extensive  level  of  international  participation  as  compared  with  FP7  overall 
(44%  of  all  space  projects  as  compared  with  68%  overall),  which  possibly  reflects  the 
narrower scope of international actors in space. 

FP7 Space is contributing to the realisation of Cross-cutting Objective 2: Capitalising on 
the innovation potential of SMEs. The participation data make clear that the programme 
has actively engaged with SMEs. Moreover, SMEs are seen by a majority of participants 
as  an  important  source  of  technological  know-how  within  projects  and  64%  of 
respondents credit SMEs with supplying important novel technologies. More than 55% of 
respondents  signal  that  SMEs  will  be  end  users  of  the  technologies  /  applications  under 
development,  while    72%  expect  SMEs  to  seek  to  commercialise  aspects  of  the 
technology developed, through innovative applications / products or services. 

Participants  do  see  some  challenges  with  including  SMEs  as  partners:    SMEs  struggle 
with  the  FP’s  administrative  requirements  (54%);  SMEs  tend  to  want  to  focus  on 
narrower application areas as compared with larger businesses or research organisations 
(47%). Stakeholders by contrast suggest that the participation of SMEs in most calls has 
been  lower  than  the  desirable  level,  and  their  contribution  subordinated  to  the  role 
assigned by large project primes. 

FP7  Space  research  has  proven  to  help  underpinning  the  innovation  capacity  and 
international  competitiveness  of  Europe’s  space  businesses  by  providing  substantial 
funding to EU space companies for technology development. 

111 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Around 25% of all industrial respondents stated that the programme has had a medium 
to  high  impact  on  their  international  competitiveness,  whereas  15-20%  report 
improvements in turnover, productivity, profitability and employment.  Analysis of results 
for  SMEs  reveals  stronger  figures  (+10-20  percentage  points)  across  all  performance 
dimensions from networking to competitiveness. On balance we judged this to be a good 
result  FP7  Space  is  helping  to  create  new  market  opportunities  through  the  GMES 
strand’s support for major new applications (e.g. ASIMUTH). 

FP7 Space is making meaningful contributions towards EU Space Policy.  GMES is the EU 
contribution  to  GEOSS,  international  public  infrastructure  that  provides  comprehensive 
environmental data, information and analyses using land, sea, air and space-based Earth 
observation  systems.  Based  on  the 
interviewed  high-level 
stakeholders,  we  heard  of  substantial  contributions  to  the  development  of  space 
applications for EU policy interests, businesses and citizens; 

inputs  provided  by 

Seeds of EU participation in international space policy and geopolitics have been planted 
through  more  than  20  international  projects  with  Africa,  China,  Russia,  Ukraine,  etc.  
Broad  engagement  with  key  players  EU  space  industry  (and  technology  centres)  is 
helping support an innovative and competitive industry.  Some limited progress has been 
made  with  coordination  of  space  research  and  space  science,  within  the  limits  of  FP7 
space investment. 

Finally, we note good progress with respect to Europe’s non-dependence related to space 
technologies,  with  development  of  independent  infrastructures  and  critical  technologies, 
as a joint effort of EU, EDA and ESA. 

112 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

8. 

EVIDENCE BUILDING BLOCK 5: EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

European  added  value  is  a  complex  concept  which  is  difficult  to  measure.  Though  the 
creation  of  European  Added  Value  was  one  of  the  driving  forces  in  the  EU’s  framework 
programmes since the 1980s, the concept has changed significantly over time. As a 2014 
report  on  European  Added  Value  of  EU  Science  Technology  and  Innovation  (STI) 
programmes  states,  it  has  evolved  “from  adding  value  to  national  efforts  through  scale 
and networking” to “playing a role in coordinating Member State policies and taking wider 
actions in support of EU-level Policy”.66  

To  measure  this  broad  notion,  the  following  list  of  criteria  has  been  put  forward  over 
time:  

  Scale and complexity of activities too big for Member States to handle alone 

(e.g. resource availability) 

  Coordination of EU and MS potential (e.g. resource priorities – policy & financial) 
  Enhanced knowledge base (e.g. research infrastructure, research quality)  
  Economic impact, efficiency gains and financial benefits (e.g. as a result of pooling 

resources) 

  Societal / grand challenges (e.g. addressing pan-European problems)  
  European values (e.g. in cooperation with third countries)  

8.1 

EU added value of space activities  

The Seventh Framework Programme  for Research and  Innovation  – including the Space 
area  –  represented  a  key  tool  to  respond  to  Europe's  needs  in  terms  of  jobs  and 
competitiveness, and to maintain leadership in the global knowledge economy.  

From  a  formal  point  of  view,  the  importance  of  European  Added  Value  is  recognised  in 
terms  of  the  conditions  for  participation.  In  order  to  ensure  complementarity  with 
national research programmes, activities funded through FP7 (not limited to space) must 
satisfy the following conditions: 

  Research projects are carried out by consortia which include participants from 

different European (and other) countries;  

  Fellowships in FP7 require mobility over national borders. 

Overall, the research for this study has  confirmed strong EU  added value – not only 
at  project,  but  also  at  programme  level  –  for  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  who 
participated in the evaluation. Among project beneficiaries, out of 538 survey responses, 
58.2%  suggested  that  the  projects  they  were  involved  in  could  not  be  supported  by  a 
national  scheme  or  ESA  rather  than  by  FP  funding,  whereas  34.8%  reported  that  only 
some of the projects could be supported. Only 7.1% of the respondents thought that all 
of the projects they were involved in could have been funded by alternative sources.  

The  outcomes  of  the  case  studies  are  in  line  with  those  of  the  beneficiary  survey. 
Interviewees  involved  in  SAFER  or  geoland2  suggested  that  because  of  the  European 
dimension  of  core  services  and  the  need  for  consistent  and  comparable  data,  it  would 
have  been  unrealistic  to  set  up  pre-operational  service  at  national  level.  In  the  case  of 

66  European  Commission,  European  Added  Value  of  EU  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  actions  and  EU-
Member State Partnership in international cooperation, 2014 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

AGAPAC  and  AEROFAST,  the  projects  would  not  have  been  supported  either  at  national 
level  or  by  ESA  due  to  no  funding  available  for  the  specific  activities  of  the  projects.  In 
the case of FRESHMON and μFCU the funding provided by FP7 proved vital to co-finance 
projects too large for national budgets. Finally, interviewees from all projects praised the 
opportunity offered by FP7 to bridge top scientists and experts from different EU Member 
States.  

The remainder of this section outlines evidence for each of the components of EU added 
value identified in the introduction to this chapter: 

Scale  and  complexity:  the  wide  majority  of  interviewed  high-level  stakeholders 
consulted over the course  of the  study suggested that the nature  of space  research, its 
complexity, scale and required economic and human resources are one of the key drivers 
of European Added Value for FP 7 action in this field. These stakeholders confirmed that 
space  research  challenges  are  often  so  complex  that  they  can  only  be  addressed  at 
European  level.  In  addition,  they  suggested  that  national  budgets  or  the  scope  of 
national  activities  are  often  too  limited  to  support  research  activities  funded  by  FP7 
space. 

Coordination  of  EU  and  MS  potential  is  another  key  driver  of  European  added  value 
for  this  type  of  research  action.  It  was  remarked  by  different  categories  of  high-level 
stakeholders that before FP7 Space came into force, the space research community was 
fragmented and there were few opportunities for the community to work together outside 
national  budgets.  Among  those  project  beneficiaries  who  indicated  in  the  survey  that 
their  project  would  not  have  received  funded  without  FP7,  78%  claimed  that  national 
sources  in  particular  would  not  have  supported  vital  international  partners  for  their 
project.  Thus,  bringing  together  the  right  actors  irrespective  of  where  they  are  based 
across  the  EU  is  one  of  the  key  added  values  of  FP7.  FP7  is  widely  recognised  by 
interviewed  stakeholders  to  have  brought  the  scientific  community  together,  enabling 
researchers from different organisations to collaborate on the same project. 

Moreover,  it  was  suggested  by  most  interviewed  stakeholders  that  FP7  Space 
outperforms ESA funding schemes, since FP7 enables participation from all MS, whereas 
with  ESA  participants  are  dependent  on  national  contribution  provided  to  ESA 
programmes. This was particularly relevant for partners from EU Member states that are 
not part  of  ESA, as well as for those that joined relatively recently (such as Poland and 
Romania). 

Quality  of  the  knowledge  base:  the  requirement  to  cooperate,  foreseen  under  FP7 
activities,  was  reported  by  several  stakeholders  as  having  a  tremendous  impact  on  the 
quality  of  research  and  knowledge  in  Europe  which  could  not  have  been  achieved 
otherwise.  In  particular  the  benefit  of  bringing  together  academia  and  industry  were 
highlighted. 

Economic efficiency: all 6 case studies on FP7 projects reveal that in the absence of EC 
FP7  funding,  the  project  partners  would  at  best  have  gone  ahead  with  the  project,  but 
most  with  a  reduced  scope,  a  smaller  number  of  partners,  as  well  as  without  vital 
international partners.  

Societal  /  grand  challenges  and  values:  More  than  three  quarters  (77%)  of  project 
beneficiaries  who  claimed  that  funding  for  their  project  could  not  have  been  obtained 
from  other  sources,  thought  so  because  the  issues  addressed  in  their  project  were 
specifically  European.  Similarly,  two  thirds  (66%)  of  respondents  indicated  that  their 
project could only have been funded by FP7 because there is no national funding for this 
type of activity or in the same research area. 

This suggests that there is strong European value added not just in terms of resources, 
coordination  and  process  but  also  in  terms  of  the  actual  topics  in  which  research  is 
conducted. While this does not indicate the magnitude of project impacts, it does suggest 

114 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

that any impacts from FP7 funded space research will occur in areas and at a scale that 
would otherwise have remained under-researched. 

8.2 

Conclusions 

Based  mainly  on  performed  high-level  interviews  and  the  results  of  the  beneficiary 
survey, the evaluation has found that FP7 space research performs very well across the 
different dimensions of EU added value, both at the level of programmes (e.g. focus on 
pan-European,  under-researched  topics,  coordination  between  Member  States)  and  on 
the  level  of  projects  (economic  efficiency,  scale  and  resources  availability,  quality  of 
research, etc.).  

Even  compared  with  other  programmes  available  for  some  European  Member  States, 
such  as  those  run  by  ESA,  FP7  Space  research  funding  has  brought  significant  added 
value.  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

9. 

CONCLUSIONS: ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This section details the conclusions of the study in the form of answers to 13 evaluation 
questions  that  are  consistent  with  the  general  approach  followed  in  assessing  the 
rationale,  implementation,  and  achievements  of  all  research  activities  carried  out  under 
FP7,  as  defined  in  the  Terms  of  Reference.  The  questions,  grouped  by  families  of 
evaluation  criteria,  (i.e.  relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  EU  added  value  and 
coherence and complementarity) as well as the answers resulting from the conclusions of 
the evaluation are provided below. 

9.1 

Relevance questions 

1.  Do  the  objectives  of  FP7  Space  research  actions  correspond  to  the  needs  of  EU 
stakeholders  and  were  they  adequately  designed  to  support  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European space industry? 

Based  on  the  findings  described  in  the  previous  sections,  FP7  was  correctly  designed  to 
support  policy  needs.  Taking  into  account  the  Council  and  the  Commission 
communications, it is clear that the main policy need was to develop the pre-operational 
GMES services. 

As for the support of industry needs, they were partially addressed; however, with the 
funding provided through FP7, the European Commission created an institutional market 
needed  for  the  European  stakeholders  to  drive  technological  development  in  the  key 
areas of space domain. 

FP7 objectives corresponded well to the needs of the research community. The main 
issue was not the relevance of the objectives, but rather  the lack of budget allocated to 
space  research  activities,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  available  funds  were  spread  across  a 
wide spectrum of topics. 

2. To what extent did the objectives reflect (was there a clear logic) between the levels 
Framework Programme, Specific Programme, work programme? Are they aligned with EU 
2020 objectives? 

With  regard  to  the  general  objectives  of  the  FP7  Space  Research  and  the  specific 
objectives of work programmes, the logic between them is clear. The Council Decision 
2006/971/EC outlined the general direction which research and development in the space 
domain  should  follow  under  FP7:  notably  GMES  and  SSF.  These  were  mirrored  and 
further  developed  by  a  series  of  specific  objectives  on  which  the  work  programmes 
focused. Distribution of calls was broadly in line with the political agenda giving priorities 
and the vast majority of budget to GMES. The objectives were updated in line with policy 
updates  that  occurred  through  the  seven-year  timeframe.  Most  importantly,  the  Europe 
2020  Strategy  was  taken  into  account  and  referred  to  starting  from  the  2011  Work 
Programme. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

9.2 

Effectiveness questions 

3. To what extent did FP7 Space research actions meet their objectives? 

FP7  Space  Research  has  made  substantial  positive  contributions  to  both  of  its 
overarching (general) objectives, and as such we judge it to have been: 

  An effective programme overall for the development of space-enabled applications 

for the benefit of EU citizens; 

  Quite effective for supporting the competitiveness of the European space industry. 

Considering space-enabled applications, FP7 space has made substantial progress: 

  The greatest achievements relate to the development and progression of 

operational GMES services, reflecting to some extent the concentration of funding 
in this area; 

  FP7 has developed numerous specialised services in: 

-  Land monitoring (e.g. REDD: deforestation and forest degradation) 
-  Marine monitoring (e.g. MYOCEAN: modelling / forecasting ocean currents 
for emergency services; short term forecasts of harmful algal blooms that 
disrupt fish and shellfish production)  

-  Emergency response management (e.g. rapid mapping during the 

response phase of fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) 

Finally,  we  note  good  progress  with  respect  to  Europe’s  non-dependence  related  to 
space  technologies,  with  development  of  independent  infrastructures  and  critical 
technologies, as a joint effort of EU, EDA and ESA. 

On  balance  we  judge  that  FP7  Space  is  helping  to  create  new  market  opportunities  for 
the  industry  through  the  GMES  strand’s  support  for  major  new  applications  (e.g. 
ASIMUTH). Around 25% of all industrial respondents to the beneficiary survey stated that 
the programme has had a medium to high impact on their international competitiveness, 
whereas  15-20%  report  improvements  in  turnover,  productivity,  profitability  and 
employment.    Analysis  of  results  for  SMEs  reveals  stronger  figures  (+10-20  percentage 
points) across all performance dimensions from networking to competitiveness.  

Focusing  on  the  international  standing  of  space  science,  FP7  Space  Research  Actions 
invested around €50m in 22 space science and exploration projects.  FP7 has supported 
a variety  of interesting projects  for  example bringing together large numbers of leading 
European  research  institutes  to  develop  comprehensive  data  sets  (space-  and  ground-
based)  and  associated  analytical  tools  to  improve  /  increase  the  exploitation  of  space 
data.  FP7  Space  has  also  supported  various  science  projects  exploiting  the  data  from 
various  international  space  missions.  The  programme  has  also  supported  horizontal 
activities,  such  as  technology  road-mapping.  The  impact  of  the  programme  overall  on 
Europe’s  space  community,  however,  was  limited  as  effects  were  inevitably  affected  by 
the absolute quantum of budget allocated to space science and exploration activities.  

Currently, datasets from many ESA and other scientific space missions are not fully taken 
advantage  of  and  small  budgets  could  be  made  available  for  organisations  to  propose 
new ideas on how to use these data. 

In  principle,  FP7  should  provide  a  more  accessible  platform  for  research  institutes  in 
countries  with  smaller  space  research  communities,  which  may  not  be  members  of  ESA 
or  otherwise  unlikely  to  win  science  contracts  against  the  best  in  Europe.    Indeed  FP7 
Space is clearly supporting research in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania 
and  as  such is  building links  amongst  leading scientific institutions  as  well  as improving 
coordination and exploitation of all Europe’s space missions. 

117 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

On  a  more  general  level,  FP7  Space  Research  has  had  a  strongly  positive  impact  on 
participants.  The  programme  has  enabled  a  large  majority  of  participants  to  realise 
most  of  the  project  objectives  they  set  out  to  achieve.  Stronger  international 
partnerships,  reputation,  internal  capabilities  and  tools  stand  out.  For  many  of  those 
participants that reported their objectives were not yet achieved, optimism remains high 
for  achieving  these  in  the  future.  This  strongly  positive  view  is  reinforced  by  the  FP7 
monitoring  data.  Project  officers  and  peer  reviewers  concluded  that  98%  of  the  101 
formally closed projects have achieved their objectives; 

FP7 Space is contributing to the realisation of Cross-cutting Objective 2: Capitalising on 
the  innovation  potential  of  SMEs.  SMEs  have  been  confirmed  by  the  beneficiary  survey 
participants  to  be  an  important  source  of  technological  know-how  within  projects,  with 
64%  of  respondents  crediting  SMEs  with  supplying  important  novel  technologies.  High-
level stakeholders actually suggest that the participation of SMEs in most calls has been 
lower than the desirable level. 

The  participation  data  however  make  clear  that  the  programme  has  actively  engaged 
with  SMEs.  Space  committed  around  17%  of  available  EU  budget  to  SMEs  and  has 
surpassed the Commission’s target of 15% of spending going to SMEs. SMEs account for 
around 18% of project participations in Space Research, which is in line with the Energy 
and  ICT  thematic  areas,  a  little  behind  Security,  Transport  and  Food  and  around  10 
percentage points behind NMP.  Around 30%  of all participants were  SMEs.  Around 70% 
of  FP7  Space  projects  had  one  or  more  SME  participants,  which  is  10-15  percentage 
points  behind  the  rest  of  the  Cooperation  Programme.    This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
participants do see some challenges with including SMEs as partners:   

  SMEs struggle with the FP’s administrative requirements (54%);  
  SMEs tend to want to focus on narrower application areas as compared with larger 

businesses or research organisations (47%).  

Seeds  of  EU  participation  in  international  space  policy  and  geopolitics  have  been 
planted through more than 20 international projects with Africa, China, Russia, Ukraine, 
etc.  Broad engagement with key players EU space industry (and technology centres) is 
helping support an innovative and competitive industry.  Some limited progress has been 
made  with  coordination  of  space  research  and  space  science,  within  the  limits  of  FP7 
space investment; 

As  a  last  point,  the  effectiveness  of  FP7  activities  would  be  enhanced  by  ensuring  the 
accessibility  of  project  outcomes  and  results  for  interested  stakeholders  through 
different actions, such  as obliging project partners to maintain the project website for a 
certain  period  after  the  end  of  the  project.  By  contrast,  insufficient  knowledge  sharing, 
especially  in  the  Strengthening  Space  Foundations  domain  between  the  European 
Commission,  ESA  and  national  activities,  could  lead  to  duplication  of  efforts  or 
inefficiencies within the execution of the projects. 

4. To what extent did FP7 Space research contribute to the overarching objectives of the 
EU Space policy? 

FP7  Space  is  making  meaningful  contributions  towards  EU  Space  Policy.    In  fact, 
support  for  GMES  by  both  ESA  and  FP7  has  enabled  GMES  to  be  the  European 
contribution  to  GEOSS  (Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems),  an  international 
public  infrastructure  using  land,  sea,  air  and  space-based  Earth  observation  systems  to 
provide comprehensive environmental data, information and analyses. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

5.  Are  there  any  specific  factors  that  render  FP7  Space  research  more  or  less  effective 
than other actions? 

Space sits at the bottom of the Cooperation Programme rankings in terms of the share of 
formally  closed  projects  reporting  at  least  one  IPR,  if  one  excludes  the  social  sciences 
and  humanities  thematic  area.  This  reflects  the  focus  of  FP7  Space  on  large-scale 
demonstrators  of  space-enabled  services  rather  than  the  classic  applied  R&D 
projects more typical of the research of the FP7 Cooperation Programme. 

Only 7% of projects report at least one IPR as compared with 39% for NMP. Seven of the 
101 fully ‘processed’ projects report one or more IPRs, 20 in total, of which 11 are patent 
applications.  It  must  be  considered  however  that  this  information  is  self-reported  by 
project participants and may not capture the totality of the actions around IP protection 
once  the  project  finishes.  This  amounts  to  around  0.4  patent  applications  per  €10m 
invested (i.e. EU contribution to those 101 projects).  Astrium dominates the IP statistics. 

The narrower scope of international actors in space FP7 Space has possibly led to a 
less  extensive  level  of  international  participation  as  compared  with  FP7  overall  (44%  of 
all space projects as compared with 68% overall). 

6. What were the impacts on the EU's scientific and technological research capacity and 
leadership? 

FP7 Space research is helping to underpin the  innovation capacity and international 
competitiveness  of  Europe’s  space  businesses  by  providing  substantial  funding  to  EU 
space  companies  for  technology  development.  Overall,  the  individuals  surveyed  and 
interviewed  believe  that  FP7  Space  has  had  a  strong  impact  on  EU  scientific  and 
technological  capacity  and  leadership.    More  than  90%  of  our  survey  respondents  state 
that  FP7  Space  has  had  a  medium  to  high  impact  on  the  EU’s  technological  capabilities 
and  international  standing.    The  results  of  our  stakeholder  interviews  were  more 
equivocal:  the  work  on  GMES  was  seen  as  crowding  out  space  research  and  therefore 
limiting impact. 

FP7  Space  is  supporting  the  EU  space  community  in  developing  and  strengthening  its 
extra-EU partnerships and networks, and in so doing is contributing to the realisation of 
Cross-Cutting  Objective  1:  International  engagement  (extra-EU).  FP7  Space  has 
delivered ‘good to reasonable’ engagement with other major space faring nations beyond 
the  EU  (collaborations  with  Canada,  USA,  Russia  and  South  Africa  are  most  common, 
links with Brazil, China, India and Japan are evident, but are less common). 

Around  half  of  the  100  or  so  FP7  Space  projects  that  had  been  formally  closed  (as  at 
October  2014),  have  recorded  at  least  one  publication,  in  addition  to  the  final  project 
report.    Together  they  have  reported  565  publications  of  different  kinds  (5.6  /  project), 
which is close to the median for all nine Cooperation Programme areas but around 50% 
of the arithmetic average, with Nanotechnology, Advance Materials and Processing (NMP) 
and Health driving up the overall average to more than 12 publications per project. 

Those 100 projects report around 200 peer-reviewed articles (36%) published in higher-
impact  journals,  which  amounts  to  around  two  articles  per  project.    Space  sits  towards 
the bottom of the rankings for the nine Cooperation Programme areas since the average 
level  of  scientific  productivity  for  the  Cooperation  Programme  overall  is  more  than  six 
articles  per  project,  again  driven  by  health  and  the  other  thematic  programmes  with  a 
strong focus on the applied sciences. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

9.3 

Efficiency questions 

7.  Were  FP7  Space  research  actions  implemented  in  an  efficient  way?  Was  the  level  of 
funding appropriate for achieving the stated objectives? 

Considering  the  level  of  funding,  for  GMES  it  was  appropriate.    According  to  national 
and international stakeholders, the support of FP7 allowed for complementary funding for 
the  build-up  of  the  GMES-dedicated  space  and  ground  infrastructure,  as  well  as  the 
procurement  of  satellite  data  from  other  contributing  Earth  Observation  missions  – 
necessary in turn to develop and deliver preoperational GMES services.  

Focusing on Strengthening Space Foundations, all topics of FP7 Space Research  outside 
GMES  actually  received  a  relatively  low  budget,  with  the  “Strengthening  Space 
Foundations”  and  “Cross-cutting  Activities”  pillars  and  related  thematic  areas  being 
allocated  only  43%  of  the  total  budget  managed  by  the  Commission.  As  a  result,  the 
expectations  of  the  scientific  community  (but  also  partially  those  of  industry)  have  not 
been fully satisfied.  

Looking to the average size of projects, projects in the field of Earth Observation had 
nearly double the:  

  average budget (more than €5 million against € 2.67 million); 
  average participant ratio (13.2 against 7.9); 

as  compared  with  other  thematic  areas.  The  difference  in  average  project  size  had  an 
impact  on  efficiency.  GMES  projects  were  sometimes  large,  leading  to  difficulties  in 
managing  and  coordinating  consortia  with  more  than  50  partners.  This  choice  however 
was  clearly  motivated  by  the  need  to  bring  forward  one  single  stream  of  activities  for 
each service. 

Focusing  on  the  strengthening  space  foundations  and  cross-cutting  activities  projects, 
the  lower  budget  and  lower  number  of  partners  (as  compared  to  GMES  projects)  led  to 
satisfactory efficiency. 

The  efficiency  of  FP7  space  with  administrative  aspects  at  the  project  level  is 
satisfactory.  While  there  are  specific  suggestions  for  improvement  which  should  be 
considered,  the  overall  assessment  seems  quite  positive,  even  for  traditionally  quite 
difficult  aspects  such  as  administrative  procedures  where  “only”  one  in  four  survey 
respondents  expressed  dissatisfaction.  This  is  quite  a  positive  achievement  and 
recommendations for further improvement should be seen in this context. 

8.  Did  the  research  activity  attract  the  EU's  best  researchers  or  leading  research 
organisations?  Did  the  instruments  reach  the  appropriate  communities?  What  was  the 
take-up for different types of actors – SME, universities, firms etc.? 

FP7  Space  Research  Actions  have  engaged  with  the  EU’s  leading  space  research 
organisations  and  space  businesses,  with  the  top  50  participants  dominated  by  well-
known laboratories and technology companies.  They have also been  active participants 
within the programme, with the organisation ranked 50th still recording 10 participations 
and EU income of more than €2.6 million. 

Europe’s  national  space  agencies  and  laboratories  figure  prominently  in  the  list  of 
participants,  along  with  other  major  public  labs  and  meteorological  offices.    Germany’s 
national  aerospace  laboratory  (DLR)  ranked  first  with  64  participations  and  €27m  in  EU 
support (it has participated in almost a quarter of all projects).   

120 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The  programme  mainly  supports  applied  research,  with  Research  and  Technology 
Organisations  (RTOs)  and  companies  accounting  for  almost  75%  of  participations,  by 
income. 

Europe’s  space  primes  are  also  strongly  represented  within  the  FP7  Space  Research 
Actions,  and  indeed,  Thales  and  EADS  figure  in  the  top  10  organisations  for  FP7  Space 
Research  overall.    The  top  50  include  a  cross-section  of  upstream  companies,  like 
Astrium, Spot Image and Surrey Satellites as well as services businesses like Infoterra or 
Mercator Ocean. 

As mentioned above, SMEs were satisfactorily involved, with 17% of available EU budget 
allocated  to  SMEs,  around  70%  of  FP7  Space  projects  having  one  or  more  SME 
participants and SMEs representing 30% of total participants. 

9.  Were  there  gaps  or  uneven  distribution  in  terms  of  e.g.  thematic  areas,  gender,  and 
geographical coverage? 

As  mentioned  in  the  answers  to  the  questions  above,  thematic  areas  were  relevant; 
however budget allocation for space science and exploration was not satisfactory for the 
scientific community. 

Gender balance is poor in absolute terms, but broadly in line with rest of FP7.  Women 
account  for  around  30%  of  all  Space  participants,  which is  better  than  FP7  Cooperation 
Programme  overall  (26%),  however,  23%  projects  report  specific  gender  equality 
actions, which is somewhat lower than the figure for the Cooperation Programme overall 
(26% for FP7 overall). 

FP7  Space  Research  Actions  have  broad  geographical  coverage,  albeit  with  a 
concentration  on  the  EU’s  leading  ‘space  nations.’    The  top  10  participating  countries, 
based  on  EU  contributions,  include  all  of  Europe’s  larger  ‘space  nations’  except  Sweden 
(which  ranks  at  no.  17).    This  group  accounts  for  more  than  80%  of  the  total  EU 
Contribution  to  FP7  Space.  The  programme  has  engaged  with  participants  in  53 
countries, including all EU28 member states and a good cross-section of ‘Third countries 
with  S&T  Agreements’  and  ‘Candidate  &  Associated’  countries.    Twenty-two  Member 
States have taken a coordination role for one or more projects. 

10. What aspects of FP7 Space research are the most efficient or inefficient? 

GMES  projects  were  sometimes  too  large,  leading  to  difficulties  in  managing  and 
coordinating consortia with more than 50 partners; however, the choice of larger projects 
was motivated by the need to achieve a single stream of activities for each core service, 
rather than several uncoordinated projects. 

Moving  to  the  evaluation  of  efficiency  with  administrative  aspects  at  project  level,  the 
overall evaluation is positive. The area where  respondents are  relatively less satisfied is 
the  ease  of  fulfilling  administrative  requirements,  whereas  also  in  this  case  overall 
judgment  is  positive  as  more  than  75%  of  participants  to  the  beneficiary  survey  are 
“very satisfied” (6%), “satisfied” (38%) or “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (29%).  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

9.4 

EU added value questions 

11. What is the EU added value of FP7 Space research action? 

The evaluation has found that FP7 space research performs very well across the different 
dimensions of EU added value, both at the level of and on the level  of projects. More in 
detail, the analysed these dimensions are: 

  Scale and complexity of activities too big for Member States to handle alone 

(i.e. resource availability) 

  Coordination of EU and MS potential (e.g. resource priorities – policy & financial) 
  Enhanced knowledge base (e.g. research infrastructure, research quality)  
  Economic impact, efficiency gains and financial benefits (e.g. as a result of pooling 

resources) 

  Societal / grand challenges (e.g. addressing pan-European problems)  
  European values (e.g. in cooperation with third countries)  

Even  compared  with  other  programmes  available  for  some  European  Member  States, 
such  as  those  run  by  ESA,  FP7  Space  research  funding  has  brought  significant  added 
value.  

9.5 

Coherence and complementarity questions 

12. Is there an overall coherence of EU space initiatives in 2007-2013? 

FP7  Space  Research  is  coherent  with  other  space  initiatives.  FP7  contributes  and 
enhances  the  competences  of  the  EU  in  the  area  of  space  by  fulfilling  its  mandate 
granted by the Lisbon Treaty. The introduction of a specific EU competence in the space 
domain  helped  to  define  competences  between  EU  and  ESA.  Broadly  speaking,  ESA 
focuses on research and development of space systems and their applications, while the 
EU  brings  a  clear  picture  of  how  space  can  best  serve  Europe’s  citizens  and  European 
policies  and  provides  additional  funding  to  the  space  programmes.  FP7  also  contributed 
to  Europe  2020  Smart  and  Sustainable  Growth  and  Innovation  by  providing  better 
opportunities  for  space-related  industries  through  services  such  as  GMES.    In  fact, 
support  for  GMES  by  both  ESA  and  FP7  has  enabled  GMES  to  be  the  European 
contribution  to  GEOSS  (Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems),  an  international 
public  infrastructure  using  land,  sea,  air  and  space-based  Earth  observation  systems  to 
provide comprehensive environmental data, information and analyses. 

13.  Are  there  overlaps/  complementarities  between  the  activities  evaluated  and  any 
other Community or Member State action in the relevant areas (including ESA activities)? 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  European  Space  Policy  there  has  been  a  division  of 
competences  between  ESA  and  the  EU  which  helped  to  manage  the  space  activities  in 
Europe,  enhancing  complementarities  and  eliminating  overlaps.  This  was  further 
improved by the fact that ESA was responsible for the development of infrastructure for 
the  pre-operational  GMES  activities  with  the  funding  provided  under  FP7  which 
strengthened  the  cooperation  between  the  two.  Aside  from  GMES,  there  are  a  small 
number  of  projects  that  could  illustrate  this  close  cooperation.  Our  consultation 
suggested  that  the  cooperation  between  ESA  and  the  EU  in  fact  could  be  reinforced  as 
the  skills  and  experience  of  ESA  are  not  used  to  the  maximum  extent.    Both 
complementarities  and  minor  overlaps  and  exist  between  FP7  Space  and  ESA 
activities, since ESA combines responsibilities in nearly all areas of space activity.  

122 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Member States authorities are at different stages and at a different scale of development 
of space activities which makes the assessment challenging. There are four key Member 
States  that  have  taken  space  research  to  the  next  level  by  developing  their  own 
strategies,  and  providing  additional  funding  to achieve  objectives,  but  only  two  of  them 
are among the top 50 FP7 participants. Taking into account the interactions between the 
European  Commission  and  the  Programme  Committee,  we  conclude  that  the  activities 
were  coordinated 
to  avoid  overlaps  and  enhance 
complementarities.  On average 70% of MS participated in the PC meetings, where it was 
possible to comment upon work programmes.  

the  possible  extent 

to 

Regarding  the  Member  States,  taking  into  account  interactions  between  the  European 
Commission  and  the  Programme  Committee,  we  conclude  that  the  activities  were 
coordinated  to  the  possible  extent  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  and  enhance 
complementarities.  Specific funding for the coordination of NCPs, has contributed (inter 
alia)  to  defining  a  common  approach  to  awareness-raising  activities.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  that  even  higher  effort  (in  terms  of  activities  and  funding  would  be  beneficial  to 
disseminate project results.  

123 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

10.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  conclusions  of  the  evaluation,  as  well  as  the  resulting  recommendations,  are 
provided  below.  Around  50%  of  the  funding  envelope  for  FP7  Space,  i.e.  ~700M€, 
comprised  the  EU  contribution  to  financing  the  construction  and  launch  of  the 
GMES/Copernicus  infrastructure  (the  Sentinel  satellites  and  ground  infrastructure).  This 
work  was  delegated  to  ESA  and  closely  linked  to  the  GIO  programme  (GMES  Initial 
Operations)  and  to  the  Copernicus  operational  programme.  These  activities  can  only  be 
evaluated  in  the  context  of  the  Copernicus  programme  and  thus  do  not  fall  within  the 
scope of the present evaluation. 

10.1  Evidence Building Block 1: Relevance – why 

FP7 Space research programme was correctly designed to support the policy needs, 
i.e.  to  develop  the  pre-operational  GMES  services  in  order  to  support  public  users  in 
achieving EU policy objectives in various fields. The decision to devote the majority of the 
available resources to the development of a dedicated GMES space infrastructure was a 
necessary  condition  in  enabling  the  operational  Copernicus  Programme  to  take  place  in 
the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  This  has  been  achieved  to  date  and 
GMES/Copernicus is by far the biggest achievement of the FP7 Space Research.  

It  is  also  noted  that  the  needs  of  industry  were  only  partially  addressed. 
Nevertheless, it is true that with the funding available through Space research activities 
under  FP7,  the  European  Commission  created  an  institutional  market  needed  for  the 
European industry to drive technological development in key areas of the space domain. 
We endorse the views  of interviewed representatives of industry and SMEs, who judged 
the  co-financing  principle  as  not  particularly  encouraging  for  industry,  as  there  was  no 
guarantee of full investment return or continuity of services. 

The  recommendation  is  to  reconsider  the  co-financing  principle  for  projects  that  do  not 
lead  to  a  high  technology  readiness  level  (TRL)  and  for  projects  that  are  not  market 
oriented but policy driven. This element was already changed in the subsequent Horizon 
2020. To verify whether this was a satisfactory change, this element should be assessed 
by the mid-term evaluation of Horizon 2020. 

Furthermore,  FP7  Space  research  corresponds  well  to  the  needs  of  the  research 
community. Besides success in the GMES area, FP7 Space was successful in promoting 
cross-border  collaboration  and  creating  networks  and  partnerships  within  the  research 
community.  FP7  provided  alternative  funding  to  MS  funding instruments  as  well  as  ESA 
projects.  The  main  concern  identified  was  the  lack  of  budget  allocated  to  pure  research 
and the fact that funds were spread across a wide spectrum of topics. Some continuity of 
activities  would  have  been  also  welcomed.  This  is  partially  addressed  in  Horizon  2020, 
where  project  proposals  are  requested  to  provide  a  business  plan  for  commercialisation 
of project results so that beneficiaries do not rely exclusively on EC support. 

FP7 Space research is coherent with other space initiatives. FP7 contributes to and 
enhances the competences of the EU in the area of space by fulfilling its mandate under 
the  Lisbon  Treaty.  FP7  contributed  to  Europe  2020  Smart  and  Sustainable  Growth  and 
Innovation  by  providing  better  opportunities  for  space-related  industries  through 
initiatives such as  GMES. Support for GMES by both ESA and FP7 has enabled GMES to 
be the European contribution to GEOSS. 

A  division  of  competences  between  ESA  and  the  EU  helped  manage  space  activities  in 
Europe.  GMES  was  enabled  by  the  fact  that  ESA  was  responsible  for  developing 
infrastructure  for  pre-operational  GMES  activities  with  the  funding  provided  by  the  EU 
124 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

under  FP7,  which  strengthened  the  cooperation  between  the  two  European  bodies. 
Regarding  other  areas  of  FP7  Space,  since  ESA  combines  responsibilities  in  nearly  all 
areas of space activity, these are mostly complementary, but some minor overlaps exist 
between  FP7  Space  and  ESA  activities.  The  overlaps  should  be  reduced  and 
complementarities enhanced, by fostering closer cooperation with ESA. 

The  recommendation  in  this  area  would  be  to  increase  synergies  and  reduce  overlaps 
between  projects  and  programmes  run  by  the  EU  and  by  ESA.  With  this  in  mind,  all 
various means of cooperation between ESA and EU should be looked into, with a view of 
strengthening  existing  cooperation  activities  and  processes.  Higher  engagement  of  ESA 
in  the  future  Research  Programme  at  all  levels  and  the  continued  participation  of  ESA 
representatives  to  the  Programme  Committee  meetings  will  reduce  the  possibility  of 
overlaps.  

Considering  the  interactions  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Programme 
Committee,  we  conclude  that  the  space  activities  of  Member  States  were 
coordinated  to  the  extent  possible  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  and  enhance 
complementarities.  Specific funding for the coordination of NCPs, has contributed (inter 
alia)  to  defining  a  common  approach  to  awareness-raising  activities.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems that even greater effort (in terms of activities and funding) would be beneficial to 
disseminate project results.  

Our principal recommendation is therefore to carry on with its past actions to extend the 
community  of  participants.  Specific  actions  to  be  considered  include  sharing  good 
practices through e.g. benchmarking, joint workshops, training, and twinning schemes to 
improve  the  engagement  within  various  historically  less  well-represented  groups, 
including downstream sectors and end-users of space-derived data and services, to make 
sure  all  interested  European  parties  are  aware  of  the  research  undertakings  across 
Europe.     

10.2  Evidence Building Block 2: Implementation – how 

Considering the  allocation of  budget within  the programme, the amount of funding 
allocated  to  GMES  was  evaluated  as  appropriate,  based  on  the  outcomes  achieved.  FP7 
support  allowed  for  complementary  funding  to  build  up  the  GMES-dedicated  space  and 
ground  infrastructure,  as  well  as  to  procure  satellite  data  from  other  contributing  Earth 
Observation  missions  –  necessary  in  turn  to  develop  and  deliver  pre-operational  GMES 
services.  Furthermore,  FP7  funding  ensured  that  resulting  services  addressed  the  most 
relevant policy areas, especially when end user participation was encouraged. 

All  FP7  Space  research  outside  GMES  had  relatively  low  budget  allocations,  with  the 
“Strengthening  Space  Foundations”  and  “Cross-cutting  Activities”  pillars  and  related 
thematic  areas  receiving  only  43%  of  the  total  Space  budget  managed  by  the 
Commission. As a result, the expectations of the scientific community and partially those 
of industry have not been fully satisfied.  

The principal recommendation here would be to now re-balance the portfolio of activities, 
by expanding support for other action lines, beyond GMES. However, this has been done 
already within the commitments for Horizon 2020. 

Looking at the average size of projects, projects in the field of Earth Observation had 
nearly double the:  

  average budget (more than €5 million against € 2.67 million); 
  average participant ratio (13.2 against 7.9). 

125 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

as  compared  with  other  thematic  areas.  The  difference  in  average  project  size  had  an 
impact on efficiency. GMES projects were sometimes very large, leading to difficulties in 
managing and coordinating consortia with more than 50 partners. 

Focusing  on  the  strengthening  space  foundations  and  cross-cutting  activities  projects, 
the  lower  budget  and  lower  number  of  partners  (as  compared  to  GMES  projects)  led  to 
satisfactory efficiency. 

In terms of FP7 efficiency regarding administrative aspects at the project level, the 
majority  of  beneficiary  survey  participants  were  satisfied  or  very  satisfied  with  the 
information  provided  on  programmes  and  calls,  further  marketing  and  communication 
and  the  support  provided  to  project  teams  during  project  implementation.  There  were 
also  high  levels  of  satisfaction  with  respect  to  contract  negotiation  timeframes  and  the 
clarity of the application process. Respondents were relatively less satisfied with the ease 
of fulfilling administrative requirements during the project. 

Another  conclusion  concerns  the  more  strategic  aspects  of  FP7  Space  and  in  particular 
project  timeframes.  Projects  that  aim  to  develop,  put  in  place  and  use  sophisticated 
technologies  might  take  more  time  to  develop  than  projects  that,  for  instance,  make 
novel  use  of  an  existing  technology.    At  the  same  time,  these  projects  might  generate 
significant added value for future actions in follow-on projects.  

As  a  recommendation,  facilitating  staged  projects  would  enable  using  the  framework 
programmes  for  projects  with  longer  timeframes,  the  benefits  of  which  might  only 
become visible once a technology has been used in follow-on projects.   

The  difficulty  in  bringing  together  the  benefits  of  financial  scale  with  a  bottom-up 
approach to project selection (as well as trade-offs between bottom-up and top-down 
approaches) was highlighted in this part of the study. One of the key added values of FP7 
is the critical mass in terms of financial resources that it provides. This fosters alignment 
of  research  priorities  at  the  national  level  and  helps  to  focus  and  prioritise  areas  of 
particular interest to Europe. At the same time, the broad open call approach within the 
framework  programme  encourages  the  emergence  of  very  diverse  projects,  some  of 
which  of  modest  size.  The  size  advantage  of  the  framework  programmes  would 
reinforced  by  more  specific  calls  that  outline  clear  priorities  for  funding.  At  the  same 
time,  the  competition  for  ideas  may  best  be  served  by  the  current  bottom-up  approach 
to research funding. 

As a recommendation, we suggest to manage the trade-off between the “open” and “top-
down”  approaches  to  R&D,  the  best  combination  should  be  identified  through 
segmentation  of  sub-programme  areas  (SPA)  rules,  based  on  TRL,  market  versus 
scientific orientation, etc. and on the definition of customised rules for each segment. 

As  a  last  point,  the  effectiveness  of  FP7  activities  would  be  enhanced  by  improving 
accessibility  of  project  outcomes  and  results  for  interested  stakeholders  through 
different actions, such  as obliging project partners to maintain the project website for a 
certain  period  after  the  end  of  the  project.  Conversely,  insufficient  knowledge  sharing, 
especially  in  the  Strengthening  Space  Foundations  domain  between  the  European 
Commission,  ESA  and  national  activities,  could  lead  to  duplication  of  efforts  or 
inefficiencies within project implementation. 

The  following  set  of  recommendations  is  proposed.  To  build  the  knowledge  base  within 
Framework  Programmes  as  well  as  improve  knowledge  transfer  with  ESA  and  Member 
states, the following actions could be taken: 

126 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

1.  Introduce  further  rules  to  encourage  knowledge  sharing  such  as  obligations  to 
maintain project websites for several years after the end of the projects; 

2.  Based  on  available  data,  we  suggest  creating  a  database  of  projects  to  enhance  the 
knowledge  base  over  time.  Ideally,  besides  the  European  Commission,  also  ESA  and 
National  Authorities  should  be  involved  in  updating  the  database  with  relevant  projects 
and  activities.  This  should  leverage  available  taxonomies  to  tag  projects  and  facilitate 
clustering of similar projects; 

3. A shared portal containing publicly available data from the projects per topic (possibly 
structured as a wiki) could be created to monitor the state of the art of European space 
science  and  technology.  Such  a  portal  would  help  European  decision  makers  set  high 
level priorities for space research based on the full knowledge of the state of the art.  It 
would  also  minimise  the  risk  of  duplication  of  activities  between  different  entities 
involved in Space research and allow them to create synergies. 

10.3  Evidence Building Block 3: Achievements – what: direct achievements - outputs 

FP7  Space  Research  Actions  have  broad  geographical  coverage,  albeit  with  a 
concentration  in  the  EU’s  leading  ‘space  nations.’    The  top  10  participating  countries, 
based  on  EU  contributions,  include  almost  all  of  Europe’s  larger  ‘space  nations’.  FP7 
Space Research Actions have engaged with the EU’s leading space research organisations 
and space businesses, with the top 50 participants dominated by well-known laboratories 
and  technology  companies.  They  have  also  been  active  participants  within  the 
programme,  with  the  organisation  ranked  50th  still  recording  10  participations  and  EU 
income  of  more  than  €2.6m.  RTOs  and  companies  account  for  almost  75%  of 
participations in terms of income. 

FP7 Space Research performance with respect to publications is in line with the 
overall  FP7  Programme.  Around  half  of  the  100  or  so  FP7  Space  projects  that  had 
been  formally  closed67  have  recorded  at  least  one  publication,  in  addition  to  the  final 
project  report.    Together  they  have  reported  565  publications  of  different  kinds  (5.6  / 
project), which is close to the median for all nine Cooperation Programme areas.  

Space sits at the bottom of the Cooperation Programme rankings in terms of the share of 
formally  closed  projects  reporting  at  least  one  IPR.  Seven  of  the  100  fully  ‘processed’ 
projects report one or more IPRs, 20 in total, of which 11 are patent applications.  This 
amounts  to  around  0.4  patent  applications  per  €  10m  invested.      This  reflects  the 
focus  of  FP7  Space  on  large-scale  demonstrators  of  space-enabled  services  rather  than 
the  classic  applied  R&D  projects  more  typical  of  the  research  of  the  FP7  Cooperation 
Programme. This information is self-reported by project participants and may not capture 
the totality of the actions around IP protection once the project finishes. 

FP7 Space Research Actions perform moderately well on SMEs. Space committed 
around  17%  of  the  available  EU  budget  to  SMEs  and  has  surpassed  the  Commission’s 
target of 15% of spending going to SMEs.  Around 70% of FP7 Space projects had one or 
more  SME  participants,  which  is  10-15  percentage  points  behind  the  rest  of  the 
Cooperation Programme.  Around 30% of all participants were SMEs. 

Gender  balance  is  poor  in  absolute  terms,  but  broadly  in  line  with  the  rest  of 
FP7.  Women account for around 30% of all Space participants, which is better than FP7 
Cooperation  Programme  overall  (26%);  however,  just  23%  projects  report  specific 

67 as at October 2014 

127 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

gender  equality  actions,  which  is  somewhat  lower  than  the  figure  for  the  Cooperation 
Programme (26% for FP7 overall). 

As a recommendation, the Commission may wish to do more within future programmes 
(Horizon  2020)  to  improve  the  engagement  within  various  historically  less  well-
represented  groups,  including  downstream  sectors  and  end-users  of  space-derived  data 
and services.   International market forecasts presume strong growth rates in the global 
space economy and expect that growth to be concentrated on value-added services and 
downstream  applications.    It  is  appropriate  for  the  Commission  to  look  to  support  the 
emergence  of  these  businesses  in  Europe.  As  mentioned  in  Building  Block  1,  actions 
could  take  form  of  sharing  good  practices  through  e.g.  benchmarking,  joint  workshops, 
training, and twinning schemes. 

10.4  Evidence  Building  Block  4:  Achievements  –  what:  wider  achievements  -  results 

and impacts 

FP7  Space  Research  has  made  substantial  positive  contributions  to  both  of  its 
overarching (general) objectives, and as such we judge it to have been: 

  An effective programme overall for the development of space-enabled applications 

for the benefit of EU citizens; 

  Quite effective for supporting the competitiveness of the European space industry.  

FP7  Space  Research  has  also  made  positive  contributions  to  each  of  its  specific 
objectives,  especially  to  the  development  of  space-based  applications  and  space 
research, broadly defined. 

FP7  Space  Research  has  had  a  strong  positive  impact  on  participants  as  the 
programme  has  enabled  a  large  majority  of  participants  to  realise  most  of  the  project 
objectives  they  set  out  to  achieve.  Stronger  international  partnerships,  improved 
reputation, internal capabilities and tools stand out, with around half of the respondents 
stating  that  their  involvement  with  the  programme  had  delivered  in  full  on  these 
particular  objectives.  This  strongly  positive  view  is  reinforced  by  the  evidence  provided 
by FP7 monitoring data.  Project officers and peer reviewers concluded that 98% of 
the 101 formally closed projects have achieved their objectives. 

FP7 space has made substantial progress on space-enabled applications. The greatest 
achievements  relate  to  the  development  and  progression  of  operational  GMES  services. 
FP7 has developed numerous specialised services in Land monitoring, Marine monitoring 
and Emergency response management. 

The  overall  impact  of  the  programme  on  Europe’s  space  community  was  limited  as 
effects  were  inevitably  affected  by  the  absolute  quantum  of  budget  allocated  to  space 
science and exploration activities. 

As mentioned for building block 2, the principal recommendation is to now re-balance the 
portfolio  of  activities,  by  expanding  support  for  other  action  lines,  beyond  GMES; 
however, this has been done already within the commitments for Horizon 2020. 

Currently,  datasets  from  many  ESA  and  other  scientific  space  missions  are  not  fully 
exploited.  Small  budgets  could  be  made  available  for  organisations  to  propose  new 
ideas on how to use these data. 

128 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

As a recommendation, data exploitation from scientific missions should be allocated more 
funding.  

FP7 Space supports the EU space community in developing and strengthening its extra-
EU  partnerships  and  networks  and  contributes  to  the  realisation  of  Cross-Cutting 
Objective  1:  International  engagement  (extra-EU).  FP7  Space  has  delivered 
satisfactory  engagement  with  other  major  space-faring  nations  beyond  the  EU 
(collaborations with Canada, USA, Russia and South Africa are most common, links with 
Brazil, China, India and Japan are evident, but are less common). FP7 Space has a less 
extensive  level  of  international  participation  compared  with  FP7  overall,  reflecting  the 
narrower scope of international actors in space.  

FP7 Space contributes to the realisation of Cross-cutting Objective 2: Capitalising on 
the  innovation  potential  of  SMEs.  The  participation  data  make  clear  that  the 
programme has engaged extensively with SMEs.   

FP7  Space  research  has  proven  to  help  reinforce  the  innovation  capacity  and 
international  competitiveness  of  Europe’s  space  businesses  by  providing  substantial 
funding to EU space companies for technology development.   

FP7 Space has provided significant support to EU Space Policy, in particular through 
GMES as the EU contribution to GEOSS (Global Earth Observation System of Systems)  – 
the  international  public  infrastructure  that  provides  comprehensive  environmental  data, 
information  and  analyses  using  land,  sea,  air  and  space-based  Earth  observation 
systems.  

Finally, we note good progress with respect to Europe’s non-dependence related to 
space  technologies,  with  development  of  independent  infrastructures  and  critical 
technologies, as a joint effort of EU, EDA and ESA. 

10.5  Evidence Building Block 5: European Added Value 

The  evaluation  has  found  that  FP7  space  research  performs  very  well  across  the 
different dimensions of EU added value, both at the level of programmes (e.g. focus 
on pan-European, under-researched topics, coordination between Member States) and at 
the  level  of  projects  (economic  efficiency,  scale  and  resources  availability  compared  to 
the  one  of  individual  Member  States,  quality  of  research,  etc.).  Even  compared  with 
other  programmes  available  for  some  European  Member  States,  such  as  those  run  by 
ESA, FP7 Space research funding has brought significant added value.  

As a recommendation, it will be important for the successor programme to FP7 continue 
to build on the European dimensions of the research that it funds. This might include:  

- Further efforts to align national research priorities and foster cross-country cooperation 
in the development of national research programmes,  

- improving, based on a thorough definition of priority areas for EU action, the synergies 
and  complementarities  of  FP7/H2020  space  research  with  other  international  (and 
European)  research  programmes  including  those  run  by  ESA,  not  just  from  the  point  of 
resources and geographic coverage but also from a thematic perspective. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Annexes 

11.  ANNEX A:  SIX CASE STUDY REPORTS 

11.1  Geoland 2 

11.1.1  Summary of the impact 

Effective  adaptation  strategies  and  counter  measures 
are  needed  in  order  to  respond  effectively  to  ongoing 
pressures placed on the environment. These should be 
based  on  environmental  monitoring  data  produced  on 
a frequent basis covering vast parts of land in order to 
provide  decision  makers  with  accurate,  up-to-date  and  reliable  information  on  the 
changing scenarios of the natural resources.  

Benefiting 
from  Earth  observation  satellite  data,  the  Global  Monitoring  for 
Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  land  services  provide  such  cost-effective  cross-
border  geo-information  at  global,  regional  and  local  levels.  These  monitoring  services 
have been defined, developed and implemented within a series of projects funded by the 
European Commission and the European Space Agency.  

Building  upon  their  results,  geoland2  was  the  last  step  towards  the  implementation  of 
fully  mature  GMES  land  services,  consisting  of  core  mapping  services  and  core 
information services. The project aimed to organise a qualified production network, to 
build, validate and demonstrate operational processing lines and to set-up a user driven 
product  quality  assurance  process  ensuring  that  the  products  will  meet  the  actual  user 
expectations. 

11.1.2  Overview and strategic context  

The  GMES  is  one  of  two  European  flagship  initiatives  within  the  European  Space  Policy 
alongside  Galileo.  Carried  out  in  partnership  between  the  EU,  the  ESA  and  the  Member 
States,  its  primary  objective  was  to  produce  GMES  information  services  in  the 
environment  and  security  fields,  to  promote  greater  access  to  space-based  data  and 
information and to encourage the tailoring of GMES data to meet the needs of users.  

The GMES programme addressed six thematic areas: land, marine, atmosphere, climate 
change,  emergency  management  and  security.  From  1998  to  2013,  funding  has  been 
allocated  by  the  EU  (notably  through  FP6  and  FP7)  and  the  ESA  for  the  initial 
development  of  GMES  (e.g.  investment  in  the  development  of  pre-operational  services 
and GMES initial operations, and in the space and in-situ components).  

Within  the  GMES  initiative,  the  Land  Services  provide  cross-border  harmonised  geo-
information at global to local scales in a time- and cost-effective manner.  The  objective 
of  the  geoland2  project  was  to  develop  and  demonstrate  a  series  of  European  geo-
information  services  showing  promising  levels  of  reliability,  affordability  and  cost 
efficiency.  The  flow  of  activities  and  the  role  of  Geoland2  are  presented  in  the  figure 
below. 

130 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 70  Geoland2 role in the development of the land monitoring service 

Source: Geoland2 website 

The geoland2 project was made up of two layers:  

  The Core Mapping Services provide land cover, land use and land cover 
change, as well as a range of bio-physical parameters as an input to more 
elaborated products; and 

  The Core Information Services offer specific information for European 

Environmental Policies and international treaties on Climate Change, food security 
and the sustainable development of Africa. 

The  results  of  geoland2  are  particularly  important  as  through  European  legislation68 
Member States are obliged to manage their natural resources in a sustainable way and to 
report the status of the environment to the European Commission regularly. In addition, 
land  monitoring  activities  are  of  key  importance  to  measure  the  progress  against 
objectives  of  international  policies  such  as  the  Kyoto  Protocol  and  post-Kyoto 
agreements.  GMES/Copernicus  in  general  and  the  Land  Monitoring  service  in  particular 
represent  the  answer  to  satisfy  the  monitoring  needs  caused  by  directives  and  policies 
and thus to support users across Europe in their efforts of fulfilling their obligations.  

Based  on  land  cover,  land  use  or  bio-geophysical  information  derived  from  Earth 
Observation  satellite  data,  the  service  provided  decision-makers  with  relevant 
information  on  the  changing  conditions  of  natural  resources  (e.g.  water  quality 
information  across  river  basins).  Geoland2  has  accomplished  not  only  to  organise  a 
qualified  production  network  but  also  build,  validate  and  demonstrate  operational 
processing lines ensuring the quality of process and end product.  

Project acronym 

Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 
Contract type 

FP7 call and strategic theme 
covered 

Geoland2 
geoland2 - towards an operational GMES Land 
Monitoring Core Service 
FP7-SPACE;    Sub-programme  area:  SPA-2007-1.1-01, 
Project N° 218795 
From 2008-09-01 to 2012-12-31 (completed) 
Space - Collaborative project (generic) 
FP7-SPACE-2007-1 
;  Development  of  upgraded 
capabilities  for  existing  GMES  Fast-Track  Services  and 
related (pre)operational services 

68  Habitats  Directive  and  the  Natura  2000  Network;  Common  Agriculture  Policy  (CAP);  Water  Framework 
Directive  and  related  legislation;  Flood  Directive;  Soil  Thematic  Strategy,  Urban  Thematic  Strategy  and 
Biodiversity Strategy 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Total cost 
EU contribution 

Project’s website 

Coordinator 
Partners 

EUR 32 558 056 
EUR 22 399 424 
http://www.geoland2.eu/ 

EADS Astrium 
57 partners  

Geoland2 partners are indicated in Annex 1 to the case study report.  

11.1.3  The implementation of the project  

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

Geoland2  started  in  September  2008  and  ran  for  four  years.  It  comprised  57  project 
partners  and  more  than  80  major  international  user  organisations.  Geoland2  activities 
were split in two building blocks: 

1.  The  Core  Mapping  Services  (CMS)  provide  land  cover,  land  use  and  land  cover 
change, as well as a range of bio-physical parameters as an input to more elaborated 
products.  These  include:  EUROLAND,  Bio-geophysical  Parameters  (BioPar)  and 
Seasonal and Annual Change Monitoring (SATChMo). The CMS products cover a wide 
variety of thematic content, spatial scales from local to global, and update frequency, 
from one-day to several years, according to three service lines: 

i)  Land  cover  /  land  use  data  and  their  dynamics  on  continental  (European)  scale, 
comprising  five  High  Resolution  Layers  (HRL)  addressing  characteristics  of  sealed 
areas,  forests,  grasslands,  wetlands,  water  bodies  as  well  as  a  methodology  to 
update the European Urban Atlas (local component). 

ii)  A  range  of  bio-geophysical  variables  describing  the  state  and  disturbances  of  the 
continental vegetation, the energy budget at the surface and various  components 
of the water cycle on continental and global scale. 

iii)  Seasonal  and  annual  change  monitoring  at  a  range  of  scales  and  extents.  Very 
High Resolution (VHR) generic land cover, land cover change maps, indicators and 
statistics  (Local  component  –  biodiversity).  HR  agricultural  land  use  maps  and 
phenology trends. Medium Resolution (MR) dynamic land cover indicator maps. 

2.  The  Core  Information  Services  (CIF)  based  on  the  data  produced  by  mapping 
services,  information  services  addressed  a  wide  variety  of  thematic  fields  of 
application,  focus  on  providing  specific  information  for  the  European  environmental 
policies  and  international  treaties  on  climate  change,  food  security  and  the 
sustainable  development  of  Africa.  They  include  spatial  planning,  agri-environment 
monitoring,  water  monitoring,  forest  monitoring,  land  carbon,  natural  resource 
monitoring in Africa (NARMA) and global crop monitoring. 

132 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 71  Geoland 2 structure 

Although  the  project  comprised  57  partners,  not  all  the  partners  were  involved  in  all 
aspects of the geoland2. In fact, the project coordinator dealt directly with the leaders of 
seven sub-projects. This structure was proposed in the proposal, but was only applicable 
to  the  technical  work.  In  terms  of  the  financial  reporting,  the  project  coordinator  office 
was directly in contact with all 57 partners. The project coordinator office had three full 
time employees dealing with the project on day-to-day basis.  

Overall, the interviewees commented positively on the role of the project coordinator and 
his office. The interviewees also commented positively on the fact that the geoland2 was 
a  great  success  in  terms  of  the  exchange  of  information,  technical  expertise  and 
cooperation;  however,  interviewees  pointed  out  that  in  terms  of  the  communication 
geoland2 was particularly challenging, as there were many streams of activities amongst 
a  high  number  of  partners.  In  spite  of  this,  interviewees  indicated  that  partners  within 
working  groups  were  kept  up  to  date  with  the  progress  through  face-to-face  meetings 
and the conference calls. Not all of the partners were able to attend the annual meetings 
during  the  project  implementation,  but  some  of  the  interviewees  indicated  that  due  to 
their small role in the project that was justifiable. 

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

Geoland2  placed  a  greater  emphasis  on  operational  outputs  aiming  to  support  public 
sector  institutions  to  fulfil  their  obligations  in  monitoring,  reporting  on,  and  ultimately 
managing their land-based natural resources more efficiently. The geoland2 sub-projects 
utilised available Earth Observation resources in combination with in-situ measurements 
and  integrated  them  with  existing  models  into  pre-operational  services.  The  project 
implementation faced a series of delays: 

  The time to contract between selection and kick -off was longer than expected - 

taking 12 months in total. This delay was due to renegotiation of both the project 
budget (which included 10% cuts across all work packages) and the product 
definitions. 

  The delivery of EO data from ESA was delayed due to a prolonged negotiation 

between the consortium and ESA regarding data parameters. As a result data for 
one of the services was only obtained in June 2010 for a project starting on 1st 
September 2008. This put a pressure on the project’s general timetable. 

  The validation and verification work package was slow to progress. This was partly 

due to the scientific difficulties of verifying the heterogeneous data products 

133 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

included in the project, but there have also been some concerns expressed by 
consortium members concerning the delivery of the work package leader, IGIK. 

  The consultation with the user had taken longer time than initially expected – 

over 80 public authorities were consulted in 38 countries. The project coordinator 
office had a designated person to handle the consultation. The main difficulty in 
the stakeholder engagement was due to the fact that MS were at different stages 
of the geo data development and usage. Some MS did not see what would be the 
added value of European service, whereas some did just reluctant to engage.  

It  was  noted  that  the  problems  faced  by  the  project  concerning  both  data  and  product 
definition could be a result of the fact that geoland2 was seeking to provide products that 
had  no  clear  example.  This  has  made,  for  example,  the  selection  of  data  parameters, 
validation  of  data  products,  and  definition  of  end  -user  requirements  difficult.  Indeed, 
this  point  was  made  explicitly  by  several  consortium  members,  who  noted  that  the 
process  of  defining  the  geoland2  data  products  was  going  to  provide  a  good  basis  for 
delivering similar products in the future. Nevertheless, the consortium responded to the 
above  delays  by  implementing  with  a  response  plan  that  has  delivered  40%  of  the 
project products 22 months into the 50 month duration.  

The project had gone through a long negotiation process regarding budget allocation and 
additional  deliberations  on  what  results  can  be  achieved  within  the  revised  budget  and 
timetable.  And  indeed,  the  interviewees  commented  upon  the  allocation  of  resources, 
human and financial as the main issue during the implementation of the project.  It was 
felt that in some instances both, human and financial, resources were underestimated.  

In  general,  it  was  also  felt  that  the  administrative  requirements  during  the  geoland2 
project  were  burdensome.  One  of  the  partner  organisations  involved  in  Euroland 
indicated  that  there  were  too  many  details  required  for  the  product  and  project 
development  description.  Also,  the  consultation  showed  that  the  participants  were 
burdened with the administrative requirements.  

that  concerns 

important  sectorial  policies 

Natural Resource Monitoring in Africa (NARMA) was one of the Core Information Services 
the  development  of  an 
addressing 
environmental monitoring capacity over African countries for the needs of the EC services 
and  for  regional  and  continental  EC  partners  in  African  countries.  In  Africa  a  strategic 
partnership  was  being  developed  with  the  AMESD  project  (African  Monitoring  of  the 
Environment  for  Sustainable  Development)  managed  by  the  African  Union  Commission. 
Geoland2 partner was responsible for installing the Environmental Monitoring Stations e-
Stations  in  50+  sub-Saharan  countries.  In  terms  of  the  NARMA  implementation,  some 
technical  problems  were  noted  as  quite  challenging.  For  example,  in  some  places  in 
Africa there were problems with software, hardware, electricity which diverged European 
personnel from core competences (i.e. training) towards resolving basic problems.  

134 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

 Figure 72  AMESD thematic areas and regional centres   

ECOWAS  in  Niamey  has  the  priority  of 
water  management 
for  cropland  and 
rangeland  

CEMAC  in  Kinshasa  has  the  priority  of 
environmental  aspects  of  watersheds  for 
water resource management 

IGAD  in  Nairobi  has  the  priority  of  land 
degradation mitigation and natural habitat 
conservation 

SADC)  in  Gaborone  has  the  priority  of 
agricultural  and  environmental  resources 
management 

IOC in Mauritius has the priority of coastal 
and marine management 

Furthermore,  the  Geoland2  partner  was  responsible  for  training  local  personnel  how  to 
operate  the  e-Stations,  which  were  crucial  for  the  local  authorities  to  receive  real  time 
data. It was noted that on various occasions it was challenging to appoint a person who 
should  attend  the  training.  The  training  focused  on  the  technical  aspects  and 
subsequently contributed to the capacity building. As a result there was a high turnover 
rate  amongst  personnel  who  completed  the  training,  as  almost  immediately  after 
completion the some personnel decided to leave the position for which the training was 
provided.  This  created  some  temporary  distortions  but  with  no  major  impact  on  the 
project implementation. 

It  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  user  licences  agreements  for  data  sharing  somewhat 
impacted the way results were shared amongst interested parties. The interviewee noted 
that  the  funding  was  public  therefore  the  results  should  be  available  for  free  to  all 
research community.  

11.1.4  The implementation of the project results  

implementation  of  the 
The  Geoland2  project  was  a  major  step  towards  the 
GMES/Copernicus Land Monitoring Core Service. It successfully managed to prepare and 
validate  the  necessary  processing  lines  and  to  demonstrate  the  pre-operational  service 
chains and products that supported the Land Monitoring Core Service at local, continental 
and global level.  

A vast number of products have been generated during the project and presented to the 
end  users.  In  particular,  the  three  geoland2  Core  Mapping  Services  operationally 
produced ‘basic’ land cover, land cover change, and land state products. These products 
are of broad generic use and can be directly used for deriving more elaborated products 
which  have  been  developed  in  the  frame  of  7  Core  Information  Services  (CISs) 
addressing specific European policies. Particularly successful, especially in terms of user 
engagement  and  operational  production,  were  the  Spatial  planning  CIS,  the  Forest 
Monitoring CIS, the Land Carbon CIS and the Natural Resource Monitoring in Africa CIS. 
Products  and  Services  delivered  through  Geoland2  are  summarised  in  the  figure  below 
indicating how they can be used and by whom. 

135 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 73  Products and Services delivered through Geoland2 

Produc
ts/Serv
ice 

Description 

Users 

Euroland 

high 

local  (i.e. 

component 

the  Urban  Atlas)  and 
(i.e. 

The European Land Monitoring Service addresses 
the 
the 
continental 
spatial 
resolution,  wall-to-wall  land  cover  parameters 
and  land  cover  change)  of  the  Land  Monitoring 
Core  Service  (LMCS).  These  so-called  High 
Resolution (HR) Layers build on a set of common 
layers  (e.g.  biophysical  parameters,  indices,  and 
texture  features)  allowing  to  follow  and  note 
environmental  trends  and  changes.  Euroland 
offers  the  following  thematic  content:  degree  of 
imperviousness, 
type,  and 
density),  grassland  intensity,  wetland  with  water 
level  fluctuation  and  small  water  bodies.  The 
main  advantages  of  such  data  are 
their 
timeliness, their costs efficiency and the fact that 
information content is coherent across border.  

(cover, 

forest 

 

European  entities  such  as  the  DGs 
Regional  Policy,  Environment  and 
Agriculture 
European 
the 
Environment Agency, and  

and 

  Member  States  and  European  regions 
with  the  mandate  to  manage  and 
report on environmental issues such as 
international  water  body  assessment, 
agri-environmental  monitoring 
or 
support for cohesion activities.  

BioPar 

SATChM
o 

BioPar  has  produced  an  extensive  range  of 
biophysical  parameters,  which  describes  the 
continental  vegetation,  the  energy  budget  and 
the  water  cycle,  for  supporting  the  European 
policies on environment and water management, 
agriculture  and  food  security.  All  parameters  are 
produced on a global scale and in near real time. 

Seasonal  and  Annual  Change  Monitoring  Service 
aims  to  close  the  gap  between  low  spatial 
resolution  global  coverage  and  the  high  spatial 
resolution  local  coverage  products  by  providing 
seasonal  to  annual  European-wide  coverage  of 
physical  properties  describing  bio-geophysical 
information  parameters,  such  as  land  cover  and 
land  cover  change.  Products  will  be  delivered  in 
the 
indicators,  site-based  maps, 
complete continental coverage and statistics. 

format  of 

Spatial 
Planning 

The Spatial Planning Service provides harmonised 
and  highly  accurate  Earth  Observation  based 
information  products  and  tools  to  describe, 
explain  and  forecast  urban  land  use  changes 
supporting  spatial  planning  from  regional  to 
European scale. 

Forestry 

Water 

The  Forest  Monitoring  Service  is  developing  and 
forest products to support European users in their 
reporting  obligations 
towards  national  and 
international  policies  such  as  the  UN  Framework 
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its 
Kyoto  Protocol,  the  UN  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity  (UNCBD)  etc.  The  services  provide 
highly accurate and spatially detailed information 
on  the  state  and  development  of  forests,  while 
suiting different definitions of forest. 

The  Water  Monitoring  Service  addresses  water 
management  issues  and  the  implementation  of 
the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the 
Flooding Directive. Both directives require quality 
assured  and  harmonised  information  on  water 
for 
quality  and  quantity  as  well  as  tools 
predictions.  The  Water  Monitoring  Services  will 
provide a pan-European model aiming to achieve 
comparability  between  the  local-usually  country 
specific- models in order to address cross-border 
catchment  issues  and  integrated  analysis  of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

institutional  users  (e.g.  DG  AGRI,  DG 
ENV, EEA, and ETC SIA) 
international  (FAO,  UNEP,  WFP)  user 
organisations and projects (AMESD). 
international scientific community. 

national  and  regional  levels  including 
environmental  institutes  and  agencies, 
authorities  overseeing  agricultural  and 
land use planning, hydrological services 
etc. 

spatial  planning  authorities  in  their 
efforts  to 
fulfil  a  broad  range  of 
monitoring  and  reporting  obligations 
arising  from  regional,  national  and 
European directives and policies. 

authorities 

The  Forest  monitoring  services  mainly 
i.e. 
address  European-level  users, 
international 
the 
like 
European  Environment  Agency  (EEA), 
EC DGs and their intermediaries on the 
science-policy  interface;  however,  also 
national  ministries  and  administrations 
in  charge  of 
forest 
legislation,  monitoring,  management 
and protection, may benefit. 

implementing 

The  main  users  are  national  and 
international  river  basin  authorities 
who  have  the  direct  mandate 
for 
coordinating  the  implementation  of  the 
WFD.  
Additional  users  are  national  or 
international  authorities  dealing  with 
the  WFD,  the  Flooding  Directive,  the 
Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan  or  authorities 
collecting,  aggregating  and  analysing 

136 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

transnational water bodies. 

information on water quality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  AgriEnv  Service  is  fulfilling  the 
needs  of  users  at  European  level  who 
are  in  charge  of  the  definition  of 
directives and strategies (e.g. DG Agri, 
DG  Environment,  EEA,  Eurostat,  ETC-
LUSI,  European  Soil  Bureau,  and 
European Landscape Convention).  
Users at National level (agriculture and 
environment  ministries, 
national 
environmental  agencies  etc.)  are 
supported  in  their  implementation  of 
European 
the 
management  and  monitoring  of  the 
effects of these measures.  
AgriEnv  Services  will  also  be  used  by 
regional institutions like water agencies 
and environmental institutions. 

policies 

and 

in 

The  greenhouse  component  of  the 
atmospheric GMES service is a key user 
of  Land  Carbon  Services.  The  scientific 
carbon  community  requires  accurate 
terrestrial  biospheric  variables.  Finally, 
in  the  context  of  the  UNFCCC  (United 
Nations  Framework  Convention  on 
Climate  Change)  and  Kyoto  Protocol 
inventory  system  of  the  European 
Commission, the Joint Research Centre 
(JRC) has a dedicated responsibility for 
the sectors Agriculture and Forestry. 

of 

the 

In  Europe  the  service  will  help  the 
preparation 
“Country 
Environmental  Profiles”  prepared  at 
regular  intervals  for  identifying  priority 
areas  for  the  implementation  of  EU 
international cooperation 
In  Africa  a  strategic  partnership  is 
the  AMESD 
being  developed  with 
the 
project  (African  Monitoring  of 
Environment 
Sustainable 
for 
Development)  managed  by  the  African 
Union Commission.  

EU  Directorates  General  in  charge  of 
Agriculture  or  Food  Security  Policies 
(e.g.  AGRI,  DEVCO,  EEAS,  and  ECHO) 
and  UN  organisations  like  the  UN  Food 
&  Agriculture  Organisation  (FAO)  and 
the World Food Programme (WFP). 
National  and  regional  agencies  like 
Agriculture  Statistics  Services  or  Food 
Security  Information  Systems  benefit 
directly from the services provided. 
private 
Secondary 
organisations  (agricultural  commodity 
traders, 
or 
research  institutions  (CGIAR)  involved 
in  the  fields  of  agriculture  or  food 
security. 

cooperatives),  NGOs 

include 

users 

Agri-
Environ
ment 

The  Agri-Environmental  Service  contributes  to 
the  improvement  of  the  timely  and  accurate 
monitoring  of  agricultural  land  use  state  and  its 
changes at European, national and regional levels 
common  methodologies  and 
by  providing 
indicators  covering  various  temporal,  spatial  and 
thematic  scales.  A  set  of  20  agri-environmental 
indicators are available, split into six services. 

Land 
Carbon 

The  Land  Carbon  Service  aims  to  set  up  pre-
operational  infrastructures  for  providing  global 
and  regional  (France,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands) 
variables related to the terrestrial carbon cycle, in 
near-real-time,  for  describing  the  continental 
vegetation  state  (leaf  area  index  and  biomass), 
the  surface  fluxes  (carbon  and  water),  and  the 
associated soil moisture. 

Natural 
Resource 
Manage
ment  of 
Africa 
(NARMA) 

focus 

The  thematic 
is  on  natural  resource 
management  in  a  seasonal  as  well  as  multi-
annual  perspective  to  facilitate  decision  making 
processes and medium term planning exercises.  

provides 

objective, 

The  Global  Crop  Monitoring  Core  Information 
Service 
near-real-time 
assessments  of  crop  conditions  and  yield 
forecasts  in  support  of  European  policies  in  the 
fields  of  agriculture,  trade  and  food  security. 
Benchmark  the  Biophysical  Parameter  Service 
products  and  promote  standards  for  derived 
vegetation  anomaly  products.  This  service  tests 
the  use  of  bio-  parameters  as  yield  indicators  or 
as information on phenology and further develops 
the  direct  ingestion  of  these  parameters  in  crop 
growth  models.  In  addition  first  Crop  Area 
Estimates  for  2009  over  China  were  provided  in 
support of JRC/MARS campaigns. 

Global 
Crop 
Monitori
ng 

Spatial 
Data 
Infrastru
cture 
(SDI 

The Spatial Data Infrastructure task supports the 
Core  Mapping  and  Core  Information  Services  in 
the  dissemination  of  products  and  services  to 
users. 

137 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The  consultation  indicated  that  core  mapping  services  had  higher  added  value  for 
downstream  users.  Overall  there  was  a  diverse  mixture  of  interest  from  the  European 
institutions  and  the  Member  States,  as  it  was not  clear  from  the  outset  who  will  be  the 
target  of  the  services  and  products  developed.  The  consultation  noted  that  some  of  the 
project partners were under the impression that some of the products were a wish list of 
the  Commission  and  were  not  entirely  linked  to  the  needs  of  MS  or  other  European 
Institutions such as EEA.  It was noted that the project coordinator went through a long 
round  of  consultations  with  the  users  precisely  to  make  sure  that  all  the  user  in  38 
countries will be satisfied with the products; however, having over 80 users to consult, it 
was  difficult  to  achieve  a  compromise  with  which  the  stakeholders  could  be  reasonably 
happy.  Interim  evaluations  of  pre-operational  GMES  noted  that  although  geoland2  was 
regarded by European level stakeholders as having delivered useful initial products, there 
have been difficulties in the validation of some data products.  

It  was  also  noted  that  during  the  phase  of  identification  of  subjects  for  high  resolution 
layers, consultation with users could have been handled differently so as to provide more 
guidance  for  the  project  partners  throughout  different  project  phases.  The  interviewees 
noted also that user requirements were quite vague but this can be linked to the fact that 
the technical competence is not within Commission to the same degree as it is with EEA 
or MS. 

11.1.5 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations  

The impacts for the partner  organisations are  deemed generally positive, even if not  all 
partners  were  selected  to  implement  the  operational  service  following  geoalnd2.  It  was 
felt  that  the  technical  developments  achieved  by  the  partner  companies  helped  the 
business to grow in a cost-effective manner. Since geoland2 was a type of collaborative 
project requiring funds from the project partners, in some instances, the project partners 
expected  a  higher  return  of  investment  once  the  service  would  become  operational; 
however,  following  a  call  for  tenders,  five  consortia  involving  only  some  partners  of  the 
geoland2 secured their involvement in Copernicus in five lots out of six available. On the 
project  coordinator  side,  even  though  the  involvement  in  Geoland2  was  perceived  as  a 
strategic  decision  in  terms  of  the  company’s  growth,  the  project  coordinator  did  not 
secure a place in the follow up operational activities. It was noted that SMEs involvement 
in  the  operational  activities  has  increased  which  is  of  a  positive  nature.  It  was  also  felt 
that  for  larger  companies  it  is  becoming  increasingly  difficult  to  remain  competitive  in 
terms of costs without sacrificing the quality of the outputs.  

One of the interviewees, a research centre, indicated that cooperation with SMEs was of 
a positive experience. It was noted that SMEs were usually pragmatic in outlining clearly 
what  can  be  done  within  the  given  time  and  budget.  In  contrast,  the  same  interviewee 
noted  that  cooperation  with  large  private  companies  was  a  rather  negative  experience. 
This was a result of the fact that these companies limited their involvement to tasks that 
they  have  budget  for  and  once  the  funding  is  finished,  the  work  is  discontinued.  The 
institutional  partners  generally  benefitted  from  the  project  in  the  sense  that  it  helped 
them  prepare  for  Copernicus.  Our  consultation  showed  that  Geoland2  had  a  substantial 
positive  impact  on  all  partners  in  terms  of  their  networking  platforms.  Geoland2 
established  a  vast  network  of  European  institutions,  national  authorities,  and  private 
companies including SMEs. This project allowed partners from various disciplines to work 
together across different countries. This facilitated the exchange of ideas. In addition, the 
geoland2  helped  to  establish  partnerships  between  public  and  private  entities. 
Interestingly,  respondents  to  the  beneficiary  survey  indicated  that  the  main  users/ 
beneficiaries of the projects and their results were equally policy makers and members of 
the scientific community (40%) and 27% of respondents indicated society as a whole.  

138 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.1.6 

Impacts on end users and wider social effects  

The  purpose  of  the  geoland2  project  was  to  further  elaborate  the  Land  Monitoring  Core 
Service  specifications  and  validation  approach,  as  well  as  to  verify  a  viable  production 
system  by  setting  up  a  pre-operational  prototype  production  environment  ready  for 
operations.  The  primary  focus  of  the  downstream  services  was  to  serve  the  national 
authorities  in  implementing  their  daily  duties  deriving  from  inter  alia  European 
legislation.  Further  downstream  applications  were  expected  to  address  commercial 
and/or  export  spin-off  use  of  GMES  skills  and  data.  A  core  service  that  can  be  used  to 
address  multiple  purposes  was  expected  to  substantially  stimulate  the  downstream 
services market and to offer opportunities for growth, in particular for established SMEs 
serving regional / local markets or specific down-stream market sectors. 

Overall project achievements are: 

  Service specifications including service evolution in terms of evolving thematic 
content for both core mapping services and core information services; 
  GIO Land operations requirements - geoland2 was a major step towards the 

implementation of the GMES/Copernicus Land Monitoring Core Service. It 
successfully managed not only to prepare and validate the necessary processing 
lines but also to demonstrate the pre-operational service chains and products that 
will support the Land Monitoring Core Service at local, continental and global 
level.  

  Production system prototype, including both an integrated software / 

hardware environment and an adequate organisational layout; 

  Stakeholder platforms as a tool to consensus building, strengthening the 

existing Copernicus Land User Platform and also adding a service provider 
network (to facilitate agreement on producer side rules and working principles) 
and to benefit from a science network to support the definition of validation 
principles and conduct independent validation and reviews; and 

A  high  number  of  products  was  created  during  the  project  and  presented  to  the  end 
users.  In  particular,  the  Geoland2  Core  Mapping  Services  operationally  produced  ‘basic’ 
land cover, land cover change, and land state products such as:  

  Pan-European high resolution layers of soil sealing and forest parameters; 
  Biogeophysical parameters at European and global scales describing the 

vegetation state (e.g. leaf area index, dry matter productivity), the energy budget 
at the surface (e.g. albedo, land surface temperature) and the water cycle (e.g. 
soil water index).  

These  products  are  of  broad  generic  use  and  can  be  directly  used  for  deriving  more 
elaborated  products  which  were  developed  in  the  framework  of  seven  Core  Information 
Services addressing specific European policies. Particularly successful, especially in terms 
of  users  engagement  and  operational  production,  were  the  Spatial  planning  CIS,  the 
Forest  Monitoring  CIS,  the  Land  Carbon  CIS  and  the  Natural  Resource  Monitoring  in 
Africa CIS. All Geoland2 products are accessible through the Geoland2 SDI portal. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.1.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration  

Our  consultation  showed  that  in  the  absence  of  EC  FP7  funding,  the  project  partners 
would most likely go ahead with the project, but most probably with a reduced scope or 
a smaller number of partners. Furthermore, the respondents also noted that the national 
funding sources would not have supported vital international partners and also the issue 
addressed  by  the  geoland2  was  a  European  rather  than  a  national  one,  hence  the 
national  funding  was  not  appropriate.  Additionally,  there  was  a  consensus  amongst  the 
interviewees that there is a lack of national level funding for the use of spatial data69. It 
was felt that the results achieved by the project are of immense value for the European 
stakeholders,  notably  the  public  authorities,  who  need  to  report  back  on  various 
environmental aspects. The geoland2 provided means to collect reliable and comparable 
data with a set of common definitions and one methodology used across many countries. 
Interviewees  also  agreed  that  the  added  value  of  FP7  was  to  bring  together  partner 
organisations from around Europe from different disciplines. The FP7 funding of projects, 
such as geoland2, helps the relevant stakeholders to network and establish partnerships 
around  Europe  which  otherwise  would  not  be  possible.  Geoland2  strengthened  the 
general  GMES  programme  by  which  production  lines  were  created,  at  least  with  a  pre-
operational status. The large integrating scope of geoland2 allowed to keep and maintain 
the  know-how  in  Europe,  which  subsequently  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  pre-
operational processing lines and confidence-building. 

11.1.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future  

It  was  noted  that  the  key  factor  of  success  was  the  fact  that  the  project  partners  were 
equally engaged in the project implementation and they felt the momentum of the work 
carried  out  and  how  this  will  influence  lives  of  the  European  societies  in  the  future; 
however,  taking  the  technical  aspects  of  the  project  into  consideration,  Geoland2  was 
going to provide a precursor service to GIO land, but it was still running until end of 2012 
which  created  some  timing  overlaps  with  the  initial  operations.  It  was  noted  that  some 
extent  of  overlap in implementation phases  could not be avoided as it takes substantial 
time  to  make  the  shift  to  an  operational  service.  It  was  deemed  that  ‘Ideally,  activities 
would have been sequential so that lessons learned could be fed into the development of 
each  next  stage  of  GMES.  Nevertheless,  many  lessons  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
development of the ‘next generation’ of GMES services’. Furthermore, it was felt that the 
project  comprised  of  57  partners  was  indeed  challenging,  especially  in  terms  of  the 
administrative  requirements  and  finical  reporting.  It  was  noted  by  some  of  the  project 
leaders  that  in  the  future  engagements  in  such  big  consortia  would  not  have  been 
preferred by the upper management.  

11.1.9  Sources  

This section provides a list of references that helped to corroborate the achievements and 
impacts. To date we have extracted information from:  

1.  http://www.gmes-geoland.info/ 

2.  http://www.copernicus.eu/  

69  CSES,  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  European  Earth  Monitoring  Programme  (GMES)  and  its  initial  Operations 

(2011-2013), Final Report, January 2013 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

3.  http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/89120_en.html 

4.  Geoland Report Summary - Final Report Summary - GEOLAND2 (geoland2 - towards 

an operational GMES Land Monitoring Core Service) 

5.  Space resources available on the Commission website: 

6.   http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/research/resources/index_en.htm 

7.  European  Commission  (2011):  Let’s  embrace  space  -  Space  Research  achievements 

under the 7th Framework Programme 

8.  REA (2013): FP7 Space Projects managed by the REA - Overview of the Space Calls - 

Success stories and key projects, REA-S2/CBO/SDO/mjs 

9.  Combal B et al (2010): The Narma-Geoland2 E-Station: An Earth Observation Based 
Decision  Support  System  Tool  for  Real  Time  Environmental  Monitoring  in  Africa 
available at: 

10. http://www.gdmc.nl/zlatanova/Gi4DM2010/gi4dm/Pdf/p92.pdf 

11. Lacaze  R.  et  al  (2010):  Geoland2  -  Towards  An  Operational  GMES  Land  Monitoring 
Core  Service;  First  Results  of  the  Biogeophysical  Parameter  Core  Mapping  Service 
available at: 

12. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228414045__AN_OPERATIONAL_GMES_LA

ND_MONITORING_CORE_SERVICE_FIRST_RESULTS_OF_THE_BIOGEOPHYSICAL_PAR
AMETER_CORE_MAPPING_SERVICE/file/9fcfd50afbf3502d0d.pdf 

13. Steinnocher  K.  et  al  (2011):  Grid-based  population  and  land  take  trend  indicators  - 
New  approaches  introduced  by  the  geoland2  Core  Information  Service  for  Spatial 
Planning available at http://www.cros-portal.eu/sites/default/files/S6P4.pdf 

14. CSES  (2011):  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  European  Earth  Monitoring  Programme 
initial  Operations  (2011-2013),  Final  Report  available  at: 

(GMES)  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/interim-evaluation-gmes-initial-
operations_en.pdf 

its 

To assess the impacts outlined above, the following interviewees have contributed to the 
case study assessment. 

Organisation  

EADS Astrium 

GAF AG 
JRC 
Univerity of Tusca 
DLR-DFD 

Role in the project 

Project Coordination * 

Forest monitoring lead 
Global Crop (lead), NARMA (lead) 
Euroland 
Euroland 

Wageningen University 

CROP and AgriEnv 

* Infoterra GmbH preferred to be represented by the project coordinator  

141 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Annex 1 – Geoland2 partners 

Country 
Germany 

Organisation 
Astrium GmbH Services 

Lithuania 

AGI Aerogeodezijos Institutas 

Role in the Project 
Project Coordination 
SATChMo 
Spatial Data Infrastructure 

Austria 

Greece 

Greece 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

France 

France 

Italy 

Germany 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

University 

Institute  of 

AIT  Austrian 
Technology GmbH 
Aristotle 
Thessaloniki 
School of Forestry and Natural 
Environment 
Astrium GEO-Information 
Services - Infoterra GmbH 

of 

Astrium GEO-Information 
Services - Infoterra Ltd. 
CEA  Commissariat  à  l'Energie 
Atomique 
CNES Centre National d’Etudes 
Spatiales 
CNR-IREA  Consiglio  Nazionale 
delle Ricerche 
DLR German 
Centre 
EARSel European  Association 
of 
Sensing 
Laboratories 
ECMWF  European  Centre  for 
Weather 
Mediu-Range 
Forecasts 

Aerospace 

Remote 

Finland 

Spain 

Austria 
Belgium 

EFI European Forest Institute 

EOLAB 

EOX IT Services GmbH 
EUROSENSE 

Germany 

GAF AG 

Greece 

France 
Austria 

Germany 

Geoapikonisis Ltd. 

GEOSAT Technology Sarl. 
GeoVille GmbH 
GIA Geodaten 
analyse 

integration  & 

Spatial Planning 

EUROLAND 

AgriEnvironment 

EUROLAND (lead) 

SATChMo 

Land Carbon 

Biogeophysical 
Coordination 

NARMA 

SATChMo 

Coordination 
Platform) 

Parameters 

Office 

(Science 

Biogeophysical  Parameters  Land 
Carbon 

EUROLAND 
Forest Monitoring 
Biogeophysical Parameters 

Spatial Data Infrastructure 
EUROLAND 
Forest Monitoring 
EUROLAND 
Forest Monitoring 
EUROLAND 
NARMA 
Spatial Planning (lead) EUROLAND 

(lead) 

Water Monitoring 

Czech Republic  GISAT s.r.o. 
France 

HYGEOS SARL 

EUROLAND 
Biogeophysical Parameters (lead) 

Poland 

IGiK 
Kartografii 

Instytut  Geodezji 

I 

Coordination  Office  (Validation  & 
Verification) 

Portugal 

IM Instituto de Meteorologia 

Biogeophysical Parameters 

Spain 

INDRA Sistemas 

EUROLAND (Urban Atlas lead) 

France 

Austria 

INRA  Institut  National  de  la 
Recherche Agronomique 

Biogeophysical Parameters 

Joanneum 

JR 
Forschungsgesellschaft mbH 

Research 

Forest Monitoring 
EUROLAND 

142 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Belgium 

JRC Joint Research Centre 

Global Crop (lead) 
NARMA (lead) 
AgriEnvironment 
EUROLAND 
Forest Monitoring 

Netherlands 

Koninkelijk 
Meteorologisch Instituut 

Nederlands 

Land Carbon 

Germany 

Land Network e.V. 

France 

Météo-France 

Sweden 

Metria 

(Service 

Office 

Coordination 
Provider Network) 
Land Carbon (lead) 
Biogeophysical Parameters 
Water Monitoring (lead) 
EUROLAND 

Hungary 

Italy 

Bulgaria 

Romania 

Sweden 

OMSZ Országos  Meteorológiai 
Szolgálat 
Planetek Srl. 
ReSAC Remote 
Application Centre 
ROSA Romanian Space Agency  EUROLAND 

EUROLAND 
SATChMo 
AgriEnvironment 

Land Carbon 

Sensing 

SMHI Swedish  Meteorological 
and Hydrological Institute 

Water Monitoring 

Belgium 

SPACEBEL SA 

France 

SPOT Image 

Poland 

SRC Space  Research  Centre, 
Polish Academy of Sciences 

Netherlands 

Stichting DLO - Alterra B.V. 

Finland 

Austria 

Spain 

Belgium 

Italy 

Finnish  Environment 

SYKE 
Institute 
Technische Universität Wien 
UAB  Universitat  Autonoma  de 
Barcelona 
UCL  Université  Catholique  de 
Louvain 
UNITUS Università degli  Studi 
della Tuscia 

United Kingdom  University of Leicester 

Belgium 

VITO 

Finland 

VTT Technical Research Centre 
of Finland 

UK 

Specto Natura ltd. 

Spain 

Universidad de Málaga 

Spatial Data Infrastructure 
AgriEnvironment (lead) 
Biogeophysical Parameters 
SATChMo 

SATChMo (lead) 

AgriEnvironment 
Water Monitoring 

SATChMo 

Biogeophysical Parameters 
Coordination Office (User Platform) 
EUROLAND 
SATChMo 
Biogeophysical Parameters 

Land Carbon 

NARMA 
Biogeophysical Parameters 
Spatial Data Infrastructure (lead) 
Biogeophysical Parameters 
EUROLAND 
Forest Monitoring 
Euroland 
SATChMo 
Coordination Office (User Platform) 
EUROLAND 

143 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.2  SAFER  

11.2.1  Summary of the impact 

friendly 

in  order 

The  FP7  SAFER  (Services  and  Applications  for 
Emergency  Response)  project  aimed  to  develop 
user 
geo-information 
space-based 
products 
to  strengthen  European 
information  capacities  to  respond  to  emergency 
situations:  fires,  floods,  earthquakes,  volcanic 
eruptions,  landslides,  humanitarian  crisis,  etc.  It 
was  responsible  for  building  the  production  lines 
current 
and  delivery  mechanism  of 
information 
Emergency  Response 
service,  consolidating  the  GMES  Emergency  Response  Service  (ERS)  mapping  and 
analysis  Service  Portfolio  and  scaling  up  a  European  Service  network.  A  wide  set  of 
consolidated  thematic  products  covering  both  the  Civil  Protection  and  the  Humanitarian 
Aid domains are now delivered during “normal” and rapid response conditions. 

satellite 

the 

11.2.2  Overview and strategic context 

The  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  is  one  of  two  European 
flagship  initiatives  within  the  European  Space  Policy  alongside  Galileo.  Carried  out  in 
partnership  between  the  European  Union  (EU),  the  European  Space  Agency  (ESA)  and 
the Member States, its primary objective is to produce GMES information services in the 
environment  and  security  fields,  to  promote  greater  access  to  space-based  data  and 
information and to encourage the tailoring of GMES data to meet the needs of users. The 
GMES  programme  addressed  six  thematic  areas:  land,  marine,  atmosphere,  climate 
change,  emergency  management  and  security.  From  1998  to  2013,  funding  has  been 
allocated by the EU (notably through FP6 and FP7) and the ESA70 to GMES for the initial 

development  of  GMES  (e.g.  investment  in  the  development  of  pre-operational  services 
and  GMES  initial  operations,  and  in  the  space  and  in-situ  components).  The  current 
Copernicus  Emergency  Management  Service  (EMS)  is  partly  based  on  the  outcomes  of 

70  The  emergency  services  and  projects  are  based  on  the  provision  of  satellite  imagery  from  contributing 
missions that are made available through the Space Component Data Access system operated by ESA since 
2008. 

144 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

the  FP7  SAFER  project  and  the  GMES  preparatory  action  linkER,  which  have  been 
instrumental  in  developing  interfaces  and  procedures,  but  also  previous  projects,  as 
depicted  below.  Most  of  the  partners  of  the  SAFER  projects  were  also  involved  in  these 
preliminary  activities  and  considered  SAFER  as 
the 
operationalization  of  the  services,  the  generation  of  value  added  and  a  return  on 
investment. 

the  next  step 

towards 

Building  on  the  capacities  of  GMES,  the  first  FP7  Space  call  indeed  included  the 
development  of  an  Emergency  Response  Support  Service  (ERS)  meant  to  support 
European response in case of emergencies associated with:  

  Meteorological-drive hazards; 
(e.g. storms, fires, floods, 
earthquakes, tsunamis, 
volcanic eruptions),  

  Geophysical hazards; 
  Man-made disasters, either 

deliberate or accidental (e.g. 
urban fires, chemical 
incidents); 

  Humanitarian disasters.  

The  SAFER  project  objective  was  thus  to  implement  and  to  validate  a  pre-operational 
version  of  the  GMES  ERS,  reinforcing  the  European  capacity  to  respond  to  emergency 
crisis  situations.  Gathering  a  consortium  of  more  than  50  partners,  the  project  was 
implemented between  2009 and 31st March 2012 with an overall budget of €40m (incl. 
€26m of EC contribution).  

  The first priority was to enhance immediate response to crisis, with the rapid 
mapping capacity after disastrous events, including the relevant preparatory 
services. The research and development work had to address technical, 
operational and organisational issues. Validation included full-scale service 
utilisation during real events or during planned exercises.  

  The second priority was to extend services covering longer periods before and 

after the crisis, through the provision of thematic products, to be added in the 
portfolio of services.  

Overall, the expected results of SAFER were the following: 

  A user-driven operational service; 
  Rapid mapping with priority on quick information delivery; 
  Progressive enrichment of information with thematic products and services and 

prevention/post-crisis phases; 

  An end-to-end service with single point of contact available 24/7 and service 

gateway, as well as geo-information available on the field. 

In  parallel  to  SAFER,  the  linkER  project  was  intended  to  support  user  uptake  for  data 
products  produced  through  SAFER  and  to  lay  the  foundation  for  the  development  of  an 
operational GMES service in the emergency management field. Training and awareness-
raising  activities  were  thus  carried  out  across  all  Member  States  as  to  how  to  use  and 
fully exploit the data products produced through SAFER. 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Figure 74 Key information on the SAFER project 

Project acronym 
Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 
Contract type 
FP7  call  and  strategic  theme 
covered 
Total cost 
EU contribution 

Project’s website 

Coordinator 

Partners 

Source: CORDIS 

SAFER 
Services and Applications For Emergency Response 
FP7-SPACE;    Subprogramme  area:  SPA-2007-1.1-01, 
Project N° 218802 
From 2009-01-01 to 2012-03-31 (completed) 
Space - Collaborative project (generic) 
FP7-SPACE-2007-1 
(formerly GMES) 
€ 40,310,282 
€ 26,912,699 
http://www.emergencyresponse.eu (not working) 
Follow-up website: http://emergency.copernicus.eu/ 
SPOT Image71 
53 partners from 16 countries: 29 private organisations 
(incl. 18 SMEs), 24 public organisations 

;  Earth  Observation/Copernicus 

11.2.3  The implementation of the project 

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

Coordinated by SPOT Image - playing a central role between the data providers, the data 
users  and  the  final  users  -  the  SAFER  consortium  was  built  around  a  core  team  of 
European service providers (DLR, SERTIT, E-GEOS), most of them already involved in the 
former or concomitant related projects. A wide network of scientific partners and service 
providers,  including  from  the  new  Member  States  and  end-users  such  as  civilian 
protection agencies and humanitarian aid actors were also involved. A slight majority of 
partners  were  private  organisations  (incl.  18  SMEs).  Typically,  users  of  SAFER  are  civil 
protections,  international  organisations  and  humanitarian  aid  actors,  in-field  operatives 
and decision-makers as well as specialised service provision for downstream applications 
(insurance, regional planning, risk assessment, etc.).  

Over 
its  three  years  of 
operation,  the  project  was 
organised  around  four  work 
packages,  including  one  for 
coordination.  One  block  of 
activities was related to the 
emergency 
response 
service  providing  mapping 
products  in  the  immediate 
aftermath  of  a  crisis  based 
demonstration 
both 
projects  and 
real  crisis 
events  (e.g.  earthquake  in 
work 
Haiti), 
another 
the 
package  dealt  with 
the  service 
evolution  of 

on 

71  In  2011,  a  single  operational  management  structure  was  implemented,  bringing  together  Spot  Image  and 
Infoterra to form the GEO-Information division of Astrium Services, which then in 2013 became part of Airbus 
Defence and Space.  

146 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

through  the  development  of  thematic  products  for  prevention  or  recovery  of  disasters. 
Another  work  package  related  to  the  user  support,  validation,  dissemination  and 
feedback.  The  idea  here  was  to  define  the  different  types  of  user  requirements  and 
translate  those  into  technical  requirements,  which  the  upstream  service  providers  could 
use  to  define  the  spectrum  of  their  services,  but  also  to  take  feedback  on  the 
services/products from beneficiaries and end-users.  

To ensure service continuity at the end of the SAFER project, and because the new GIO-
EMS  (GMES  Initial  Operations  (2011-2013))  got  underway  three  months  later  than 
anticipated, the SAFER project was extended by three months to March 31st 2012.  

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

and 

thus 

involved 

Overall the management of the project was appreciated by the partners interviewed and 
went smoothly. Following a six-month phase of structuring of the project, the large size 
of  the  consortium  did  not  turn  into  an  issue,  since  the  (number  of)  partners  differed 
across  the  three  main  phases  of  work:  the  “response”  phase  required  a  very  strong 
reactivity 
phases 
“preparedness/recovery”  focussed  more  on  longer  term  research  work  to  develop  the 
quality  of  services  to  be  deployed  in  case  of  emergencies  and  involved  more  partners. 
The different activities were thus working in parallel; however, because of their different 
paces,  the  interviewees  are  of  opinion  that  it  would  have  made  sense  to  separate  the 
research  activities  (thematic  services)  from  the  operational  work.  It  was  also  regretted 
that  the  validation  of  the  maturity  of  the  research  activities  was  performed  by  SAFER 
partners and not by an external expert (e.g. from an institution like ESA or JRC), which 
could  be  fully  neutral  as  regards  the  assessment  of  the  transferability  towards  SAFER 
services.  

partners  whereas 

only 

five 

the 

During  the  early  stages  of  the  implementation  of  both  SAFER  and  linkER,  there  were 
challenges  in  ensuring  that  users  understood  the  purpose  of  those  projects  -  being 
implemented in parallel but funded under different rules and procedures (linkER was an 
initial  operational  service  financed  through  a  service  contract  meant  to  facilitate  the 
preparation of the GIO, whereas SAFER was a pre-operational service that required a co-
financing  contribution  from  project  partners)-  and  the  distinction  between  the  two  in 
terms  of  where  to  go  for  different  types  of  support;  however,  although  there  were 
concerns about possible duplication during the early stages of implementation due to the 
fact  that  different  consortia  were  involved,  these  challenges  were  overcome  thanks  to 
discussions  between  the  stakeholders  and  the  linkER  training  and  awareness-raising 
activities  were  finally  seen  as  highly  supportive  of,  and  complementary  with  SAFER 
services.  It  was  still  felt  by  some  interviewees  that  the  SAFER  project  was  too  much 
technology-push  and  not  enough  user-driven  to  ultimately  ensure  an  optimal  access  to 
the products. 

A  critical  issue  identified  for  the  SAFER  project72  was  the  timeliness  of  data  availability 
following  service  activation.  A  number  of  stakeholders  noted  indeed  that  delays  in  the 
delivery  of  data  products  were  a  significant  problem  for  the  ERS  under  SAFER.  Maps 
providing situation awareness and a common operational picture were needed within as 
short a timeframe as possible following the occurrence of a disaster (preferably 1-6 hours 
of a crisis happening); however, the first crisis maps providing images of areas affected 
by  disasters  were  often  only  available  after  24  hours  from  the  initial  event,  and 

72 CSES, Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action, Final Report, December 14th 2012 

147 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

sometimes more, depending on data availability through the DWH73. The need for maps 
to  be  provided  on  a  sufficiently  timely  basis  influenced  user  perceptions  as  to  the 
usefulness and usability of the data products. The consortium had in particular to address 
the political willingness to deliver products at a specific date, notwithstanding their level 
of  development/readiness  or  quality.  This  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  users’ 
satisfaction  in  the  early  phases  of  the  project.  Even  if  sometimes  this  was  beyond  the 
control  of  the  service  contractor  since  it  depended  on  the  specific  geographic  area 
affected  by  a  disaster/  emergency  and  the  satellite  data  frequency  that  ESA  had 
available, specific procedures were put in place over time in SAFER to reduce the delivery 
time.  These  procedures  were  then  shared  with  ESA,  which  then  shared  it  with  data 
providers within Copernicus. As the quality of the products improved  over the course of 
the  project  and  its  follow-up  activities,  the  user  satisfaction  has  then  improved 
considerably.  

11.2.4  The projects’ results and beneficiaries 

The  main  outputs  of  the  SAFER  pre-operational  project  have  been  that  the  lessons 
learned  have  been  considered  and  taken  into  account  in  planning  for  the  design  and 
configuration  of  operational  services  under  the  GIO.  For  instance,  data  products 
developed  through  the  EMS-Mapping  Service  represent  strong  continuity  with  those 
developed  through  SAFER,  although  some  changes  have  been  made  linked  to  the 
specifications for the new operational service. Looking more into details, there were two 
aspects to the SAFER pre-operational service:  

  The Emergency Response Service was the most visible aspect of the project. ERS 
products were made available in both rush and non-rush mode for European Civil 
protection agencies and humanitarian actors. Under SAFER in non-rush mode, 
there have been a lot of activations outside the EU, reflecting the fact that the 
availability of reference data and maps is very limited in developing countries.  
  The Emergency Support Service: Sustaining and completing the core ERS, the 
Emergency Support service provided reference products and situation maps. 
These geo-information products were specifically dedicated to the preparedness 
and recovery phases of the crisis.  

One  key  output  of  the  project,  according  to  interviewees,  relates  to  the  availability  of 
standard products  and procedures: “All providers produce the  same  products, the  same 
services with the same spectrum, so we can interchange any time from one provider to 
the other”.  

As  far  as  the  achievement  of  objectives  is  concerned,  the  central  aim  of  providing 
mapping  in  support  of  crisis  management  within  the  EU  and  in  third  countries  was 
achieved.  The  service  was  operational  and  the  maximum  timeframe  for  delivering 
reference  maps  (6  hours),  delineation  and  grading  maps  (24  hours)  under  the  service 
agreement  was  achieved  at  the  end  of  the  project.  The  key  immediate  outputs  of  the 
project  are  for  headquarters,  decision-makers  and  in-field  operatives  in  Europe  and 
worldwide: 

  Reference maps (within 6 hours); 
  Assessment maps (within 24 hours); 
  Thematic maps. SAFER’s thematic services include: 

73  DWH:  The  Data  Warehouse  Agreement  to  procure  GMES  data  (managed  by  ESA  on  behalf  of  the  GMES 

bureau) 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

-  Floods (mapping of past floods, potential damage maps, flood information 

service) 

-  Fires (rapid middle resolution maps to monitor the development of fires, 

mapping of fires to help develop impact assessments, fire risk forecasting 
maps) 

-  Earthquakes and volcanoes (soil displacement (pre-crisis), damage 

detection (aftermath)) 

-  Landslides (mapping, monitoring, real -time forecasting) 
-  Humanitarian Crisis (rapid mapping capability during and after a crisis) 

  Early warning and preparedness information. 

While  SAFER  played  an  important  role  in  the  development  of  data  products,  the  linkER 
project  was  also  critical  in  structuring  the  user  community  and  in  developing  user 
interfaces  to  access  data  products.  There  was  a  progressive  increase  in  the  quality  and 
user take up levels over time in SAFER, with about 50 activations per annum by the final 
year  of  the  research  project.  Those  activations  helped  to  develop  the  service  but  also 
responded  to  the  needs  of  the  states  and  authorities.  They  included  events  such  as  the 
initial  early-assessment  of  building  damage  in  the  aftermath  of  the  earthquake  that  hit 
Haiti  in  2010,  the  eruption  of  the  Eyjafjallajokull  volcano,  and  floods  in  Pakistan.  This 
growing  number  of  activations  reflected  progressively  higher  demand  from  users  as 
awareness  levels  about  the  service  and  its  benefits  grew.  This  occurred  even  though 
there were  sometimes  problems in terms  of the timeframe  for the delivery  of  final data 
products  /  maps  in  rush  mode  depending  on  user  needs  and  some  improvements  that 
could still be made as regards the user-friendliness of the products, which were seen as 
not always intuitive or easy to use. According to one user interviewed, ‘They were able to 
have  good  printed  and  good  communication  material  so  the  outreach  especially  inside 
Europe  was  relatively  successful’.  There  was  however  a  comparatively  low  number  of 
service activations from users in the new Member States until towards the latter part of 
the  project,  and  a  small  number  of  countries  such  as  France  and  Italy  accounted  for  a 
disproportionate number of activations. It is indeed claimed that linkER was too short to 
train a whole community of users to a new technology, its understanding, and providing 
the elements to use the service. Some countries are still in a discovery phase, for which 
linKER was only one of the first steps to build a user community. 

11.2.5 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations  

The impacts for the partner  organisations are  deemed generally positive, even if not  all 
partners  were  selected  to  implement  the  operational  service  following  SAFER.  Since 
SAFER  was  a  project  requiring  co-funding  from  the  partners  and  because  of  their 
accumulated  experience,  they  were  indeed  expecting  a  higher  return  of  investment  as 
service  providers  once  the  service  would  become  operational;  however,  following  a  call 
for  tenders  a  consortium  involving  only  some  partners  of  the  SAFER  consortium  was 
selected to implement the follow-up activities.  

The institutional partners generally benefitted from the project in the sense that it helped 
them prepare the operational phase of GIO/Copernicus.  

From  its  participation  in  the  project  the  coordinating  institution  was  able  to  develop 
specific  procedures  to  increase  the  performance  of  data  provision  in  reactive  situations, 
which  are  reused  internally in  the  framework  of  many  reactive  services  (in  particular  to 
identify  blocking  points  and  find  solutions  to  overcome  them  and  adapt  the  processes); 
however,  because  of  the  non-selection  of  its  consortium  for  the  GIO-ERS,  the  12 
engineers and researchers dedicated to rapid mapping went to other activities (within or 
outside  the  company)  and  the  two  temporary  staff  were  not  maintained.  It  was  thus 
decided internally not to go for EU co-funded projects anymore, except in some marginal 
cases. 

149 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

A  research  organisation  playing  a  key  role  in  SAFER  could  benefit  through  SAFER  from 
the  development  and  implementation  of  a  quality  process  that  has  led  to  its  ISO9001 
certification for the production and publication within six hours after reception of the first 
satellite  data  of  crisis  geo-information  for  civil  protection  agencies.  The  entity  is  now 
capable of mobilising expert teams 24/7, 365 days a year to deliver this information. This 
process  was  seen  as  difficult  to  implement,  but  worth  the  effort.  It  is  now  regularly 
audited;  however  the  entity  also  suffered  from  the  non-selection  of  the  bid  of  its 
consortium  for  the  GIO-ERS,  since  the  human  and  technical  capacities  they  had 
developed  over  many  years  thanks  to  the  public  support  -  but  with  the  view  of  the 
operationalization  of  the  service  -  were  not  exploited.  A  decision  had  to  be  taken  on 
whether  or  not  to  maintain  the  engineers  in-house:  it  was  decided  to  “wait  for  better 
days” (new call for the operation of the service in 2014) while keeping the competences 
internally  and  finding  other  possible  applications  of  the  research  developments  (e.g. 
security,  insurance,  defence)  playing  the  role  of  a  knowledge  transfer  entity  between 
basic  research  and  applications.  The  entity  continues  collaborating  with  some  SAFER 
partners  to  develop  tools  and  better  address  user  needs  during  major  crisis  or  for 
environment/land management at a more regional scale. 

The  project  also  allowed  raising  the  general  awareness  on  the  technology  –  notably 
through  the  organisation  of  workshops  -  which  was  seen  positive  by  user  groups  and 
worth  the  investment.  The  European  users  were  generally  satisfied,  whereas  on  the 
international  side,  even  if  the  users  were  pleased  to  see  the  technology  advance,  they 
were confused about the role and the different operators in the field. This is considered 
that  more  work  could  be  done  to  avoid  some  overlap  internationally  and  improve  the 
coordination  with  the  long-standing  existing  services  outside  Europe  (e.g.  International 
Charter, United Nations).  

Interestingly  a  SME  which  is  part  of  the  consortium  implementing  the  SAFER  follow-up 
GIO-ERS  activities  also  faced  a  loss  in  staff  in  emergency  services  (while  increase  in 
other  business  areas),  which  is  claimed  to  be  due  to  the  low  level  of  budget  for  the 
operations, compared to the high level of resources devoted to research activities. This is 
indeed seen as “strategic to be involved in the operations, but you cannot be strategic for 
ever”; however, overall, thanks to SAFER, the company gained a lot of experience, which 
opens  new  opportunities:  “We  thought  about  how  to  do  it,  we  developed  added-value 
processes to do it quickly, we developed experience on how to work in this area, how to 
work  with  users,  we  developed  contacts.  We  collected  good  insights,  contacts  with 
different players. This is what you need to do business in this area: a lot of experiences 
both  on  personal  and  technical  level”.  The  company  also  valued  a  lot  the  possibility  to 
take  the  time  to  improve  the  services  within SAFER,  which  cannot  be  done  in  a  private 
contract, where the service needs to be ready. The company is now providing services to 
both  institutional  players  and  private  entities,  including  NGO,  in  particular  in  non-rush 
mode  in  developing  countries,  where  there  is  a  need  for  broader  sets  of  data.  If  the 
company had not been selected for the follow-up project, which was their original aim, it 
would  have  been  considered  as  a  failure  after  having  done  the  implementation  and 
testing,  though  this  could  have  been  overcome.  Many  of  the  staff  trained  during  SAFER 
would  indeed  have  been  used  in  different  contexts  for  non-emergency  services  (e.g. 
companies  needing  data  for  construction  work  in  a  specific  country),  using  many 
processes  developed  in  the  emergency  context  since  this  allows  running  efficiently  and 
fast.  

Overall,  all  partners  interviewed  maintained  partnerships  with  some  SAFER  partners, 
which  they  usually  already  cooperated  with  prior  to  SAFER.  Some  organisations  gained 
new contacts with users, which they exploited further at the end of the project. 

150 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.2.6 

Impacts on end users and wider societal effects  

GMES  is  a  space  programme  with  immediate  and  visible  wider-reaching  impacts.  End-
users of GMES mainly include public sector organisations (national ministries of defence, 
foreign  affairs  and  development),  international  organisations  such  as  the  FAO,  the  UN, 
European institutions, and NGOs. Private sector organisations are in the minority.  

core 

enabling 

The overall main outcome of the project 
for  the  society  is  that  the  emergency 
service  has  been 
response 
expanded, 
crisis 
better 
management  before,  during  and  after 
emergencies  often  related  to  global 
the 
climate  change.  This  supports 
achievement  of  the  overall  goal  of  the 
GMES  Emergency  Response  Service, 
which 
is,  beyond  consolidating  an 
operational  service,  to  provide  a  better 
quality  of  life  and  increased  safety  to 
European 
vulnerable 
population  worldwide.  Through  the  information  provided  by  SAFER  the  EU  could  source 
its own information of crises. More generally, having the capabilities to be informed in a 
timely  and  reliable  manner  reduces  the  dependency  of  European  actors  in  emergency 
relief efforts and helps strengthen the position of the EU on the international stage74. 

citizens 

and 

According  to  interviewees,  the  project  allowed  developing  a  common  language  with  the 
user  community  resulting  in  the  development  of  the  portfolio  of  services  and  clear 
procedures for activation, which was then taken over by the GIO-EMS. Public authorities 
have acquired a better knowledge of the capabilities of the satellite data products. As an 
illustration, following the earthquake in Haiti, there was no need for the local authorities 
to have specialists to get the data, but just to go on Internet with a basic computer. In 
that specific case, they received for instance data: 

  To identify where to land planes in the country after the earthquake; 
  To identify the roads for traffic (civil protection forces);  
  To find the zones where water could be collected; 
  To identify where people have settled to identify refugees camps, etc. 

Interestingly,  since  the  maps  were  provided  on  an  open  way  online,  some  individual 
users  from  Canada  also  contacted  directly  the  service  provider  to  request  specific 
information  about  the  situation  in  Haiti,  which  demonstrates  that  the  information  was 
diffused.  

Until 31st March 2012, the pre-operational emergency management service of GMES was 
thus provided through SAFER. The launch and initial phase of implementation of the new 
EMS-Mapping  Service  has  been  able  to  draw  on  lessons  learned  through  SAFER  and 
linkER. On 1st April 2012, the mapping component of the Copernicus (then called GMES) 
Emergency Management Service (GIO-EMS - Mapping) entered into Initial Operations. It 
addresses,  with  a  worldwide  coverage,  a  wide  range  of  emergency  situations  resulting 
from  natural  or  man-made  disasters  and  covers  in  particular:  floods,  earthquakes, 
landslides, severe storms, fires, technological disasters, volcanic eruptions, humanitarian 
crises,  and  tsunamis.  It  supports  all  phases  of  the  emergency  management  cycle: 
preparedness,  prevention,  disaster  risk  reduction,  emergency  response  and  recovery. 

74 CSES, Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space, Final Report, April 2011 

151 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The service is provided free of charge and can be activated by authorised users such as 
national  civil  protection  authorities.  Given  the  change  from  working  in  an  R&D 
environment  (FP7  project)  to  an  operational  environment  within  the  GIO-EMS,  some 
adaptations had to be made. The service contractor for instance has had to scale up its 
activities given the need for staff to be on stand-by for service activation on a 24/7/365 
basis.  Twenty  people  are  working  on  the  project  full-time  on  a  shift  basis.  The 
management  of  the  project  requires  2-3  people  (including  coordination  work  between 
partners).  

11.2.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration 

Should the FP7 funding not be available, the project partners would most probably have 
proceeded  with  the  project,  with  a  reduced  scope  or  with  other  sources  of  funding  or 
fewer partners. SAFER was indeed a very specific FP7 Space research project, which was 
more  applied  than  any  of  the  FP7  projects  in  which  the  partners  had  previously  been 
involved.  According  to  interviewees,  the  content  of  the  project  involving  emergency 
response  activities  on  one  side  and  the  development  of  thematic  products  (research 
work)  on  the  other  side  was  most  probably  influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  project  was 
financed through FP7, and thus had to also include research activities in addition to the 
operational work.  

This  would  thus  not  have  been  surprising  for  the  interviewees  if  the  project  had  been 
financed through other EU funding frameworks (e.g. through a cost-sharing ESA/EC). In 
particular  since  SAFER  was  addressing  societal  needs  with  the  aim  to  better  address 
crisis situations in Europe, it would most probably have taken place in another form. Also 
because  of  its  European  dimension  and  the  need  for  data  which  is  consistent  and 
comparable,  it  would  have  been  unrealistic  to  set  up  such  a  pre-operational  service  at 
the national level, whereas many emergencies affect cross-border areas and necessitate 
a  multi-lateral  response  from  different  actors  across  a  number  of  Member  States.  In 
addition there were scale benefits in developing a 24/7/365 service on an EU-wide basis 
stemming from resources being used to benefit the different civil protection agencies. It 
is indeed claimed that there is generally a lack of financing at national level for the use of 
spatial  data75.  Finally,  the  financing  of  SAFER  through  FP7  allowed  the  EC  to  shape  the 
project  and  have  primary  access  to  the  project  results  in  order  to  prepare  for  the 
operational phase. 

11.2.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future 

From the interviewees the key success factors of the project were the following: 

  The good and effective coordination of the project; 
  The partnership which had a very solid foundation with people involved since 

many years in the field, being able to operate very quickly; 

  The technical capacities of the partners; 
  The good will to collaborate and the good spirit, which was also related to the 

societal purpose of the project; 

  Users’ engagement and increased users awareness: Cooperation on a regular 

basis was seen as essential to ensure that users have a good understanding about 

75  CSES,  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  European  Earth  Monitoring  Programme  (GMES)  and  its  initial  Operations 

(2011-2013), Final Report, January 2013 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

GMES data products in the emergency field and their potential benefits. This could 
be achieved through the regular holding of workshops and joint training exercises 
to bring together civil protection actors; 

  Ability to reinforce the linkages between the different partners through the 
hosting of young researchers working on the project and the sharing of 
knowledge. 

The  lessons  learned  by  the  different  partners  over  the  course  of  the  project  are  the 
following: 

 

It would have been beneficial to increase the relationships with the end-users by 
increasing the frequency of training in situ simulations with stakeholders, in 
particular the ones not knowing the products already but which have the capacity 
to develop it (incl. Eastern Europe).  

  The user-friendliness and level of standardisation of the product could have been 

enhanced to ensure better user uptake. 

  The project could have coordinated more with the existing international between 

emergency response international mechanisms initiatives (UN-SPIDER, the 
International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, Sentinel Asia) in order to 
ensure the integration at the international level of the EU contribution. It proved 
difficult to collaborate operationally during specific events outside Europe where 
SAFER was activated and other services were also active. The mechanism for the 
interaction/coordination with these actors could have been better defined in the 
proposal stage. 
It would have been more constructive and clearer to separate the rapid-mapping 
and the other phases (disaster reduction) in the project: research and operation 
are both very important but they have very different specificities. 
In the case of a similar project, it should be thought more in-depth from the 
project outset of the best suited operational cost model for the service provision, 
incl. how to best finance people ready to operate 24/7, waiting for the activity to 
occur.  

 

 

  There is still work to be done to exploit, validate and distribute the high-frequency 
and high-resolution data from EU satellite infrastructure and develop value-added 
services based on the exploitation of this data.  

  The EU could consider supporting the development of national data access 

infrastructures since the institutes receiving the data do not necessarily share it: 
for instance if a country wants to access data, does it have the capacity/the right 
to access it, to distribute it within the country, etc. 

11.2.9  Sources 

Bibliography 

1.  Cordis SAFER website: http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/89681_en.html 

2.  CSES, Interim Evaluation of FP7 Space, Final Report, April 2011 

3.  CSES,  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  European  Earth  Monitoring  Programme  (GMES)  and 

its initial Operations (2011-2013), Final Report, January 2013 

4.  CSES,  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  GMES  Preparatory  Action,  Final  Report,  December 

14th 2012 

5.  Corda data, extracted in June 2014 

153 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

6.  Hello  D.,  Gomez  C.,  SAFER  and  GMES  Emergency  Response  Core  Service:  One  step 
closer  to  full-scale  operational  deployment,  FP7  info  day  presentation  -  Warsaw  - 
September 2009 

7.  http://www.esa.int/  

8.  Strunz  G.,  Hello  D.,  SAFER  and  the  GMES  Emergency  Response  Service:  Inputs  for 
5th  GEO  European  Projects'  Workshop,  Presentation  -  London  –  February  8th-9th 
2011 

9.  Evaluation  of  FP7  space  research,  Replies  to  the  survey  of  participants  to  the  FP7 

Space research programme, 2014 

List of interviewees  

Organisation  
Airbus  Defence  and  Space,  Capacity  Building  Project  Manager  -    Geo-
Intelligence  
University  of  Strasbourg,  Director  of  the  SERTIT  (regional  image 
processing and remote sensing service), 
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection 
and  Security  of  the  Citizen  (Ispra),  Global  security  and  crisis 
management 
GISAT, Head of the GIS Department 
United  Nations  Institute  for  Training  and  Research  (UNITAR-UNOSAT), 
Manager, UNOSAT 

Role in the project 
SAFER  project 
organisation 

coordinating 

SAFER project partner 

SAFER project partner 

SAFER project partner 

SAFER project partner 

SAFER Project partners 

Project partners in decreasing order of EC contribution 

Country 

DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV 

SPOT IMAGE (SI) SA (coordinator) 

UNIVERSITE DE STRASBOURG 

INFOTERRA LIMITED 

E-GEOS SPA 

EUROPEAN UNION SATELLITE CENTRE 

JRC -JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE- EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

CENTRE NATIONAL D'ETUDES SPATIALES - CNES 

INFOTERRA GMBH 

PRESIDENZA DEL CONSIGLIO DEI MINISTRI - DIPARTIMENTO DELLA PROTEZIONE CIVILE 

ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI GEOFISICA E VULCANOLOGIA 

MINISTERE  DE  L'INTERIEUR,  DE  L'OUTREMER  ET  DES  COLLECTIVITES  TERRITORIALES 
DIRECTION DE LA DEFENSE ET DE LA SECURITE CIVILES 

KEYOBS S.A. (declared bankrupt in 2013)  

MAGELLIUM SAS 

DE 

FR 

FR 

UK 

IT 

ES 

EU 

FR 

DE 

IT 

IT 

FR 

BE 

FR 

154 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME 

INDRA SISTEMAS S.A. 

UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE 

THE NATIONAL LAND SURVEY OF SWEDEN 

GISAT S.R.O. 

UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH 

INGENIERA DE SISTEMAS PARA LA DEFENSA DE ESPANA SA-ISDEFE 

BUNDESAMT FÜR BEVÖLKERUNGSSCHUTZ UND KATASTROPHENHILFE 

SELEX ES SPA 

TELESPAZIO SPA 

JOANNEUM RESEARCH FORSCHUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH 

GMV AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE SA UNIPERSONAL 

TELE-RILEVAMENTO EUROPA - T.R.E. S.R.L. 

GAMMA REMOTE SENSING RESEARCH AND CONSULTING AG 

MAPACTION TRUST 

UNIVERSIDAD DE VALLADOLID 

METEO-FRANCE 

GEOMER GMBH 

EUROSENSE BELFOTOP N.V. 

ROMANIAN SPACE AGENCY 

REMOTE SENSING APPLICATION CENTRE - RESAC 

NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF ATHENS 

ALTAMIRA INFORMATION SL 

CRITICAL SOFTWARE SA 

PLANETEK HELLAS 

GEOID BVBA 

UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA 

NORSK INSTITUTT FOR LUFTFORSKNING 

METRIA AB 

SC EUROSENSE ROMANIA SRL 

CENTRO EUROPEO DI FORMAZIONE E RICERCA IN INGEGNERIA SISMICA 

SOGREAH CONSULTANTS SAS 

IT 

ES 

IT 

SE 

CZ 

CH 

ES 

DE 

IT 

IT 

AT 

ES 

IT 

CH 

UK 

ES 

FR 

DE 

BE 

RO 

BG 

EL 

ES 

PT 

EL 

BE 

ES 

NO 

SE 

RO 

IT 

FR 

155 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF 
SCIENCES 

ECOLE NORMALE SUPERIEURE 

PARIS-LODRON-UNIVERSITAT SALZBURG 

GMVIS SKYSOFT SA 

ACCADEMIA  EUROPEA  PER  LA  RICERCA  APPLICATA  ED 
PROFESSIONALE BOLZANO (ACCADEMIA EUROPEA BOLZANO) 

IL  PERFEZIONAMENTO 

EDISOFT-EMPRESA DE SERVICOS E DESENVOLVIMENTO DE SOFTWARE SA 

INSTITUTE OF GEODYNAMICS OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY 

CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE 

UNIVERZITA KOMENSKEHO V BRATISLAVE 

ARTELIA EAU ET ENVIRONNEMENT SAS  

UK 

BG 

FR 

AT 

PT 

IT 

PT 

RO 

IT 

SK 

FR 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.3  AGAPAC 

11.3.1  Summary of the impacts 

AGAPAC was an important project for the European stakeholders as 
the  market  for  gallium  nitride  (GaN)  transistors  was  expected  to 
grow significantly, with main turnover in third-generation (3G) base 
station, sat-com and military sectors. The AGAPAC project targeted 
packaging  for  space  applications  to  enable  European  stakeholders 
to  strengthen  their  position  in  the  highly  competitive  space 
industry.  

11.3.2  Overview and strategic context 

Reducing  size  and,  in  parallel,  increasing  power 
capabilities  of  electronic  devices  in  a  spacecraft  is  of 
huge  importance  for  the  overall  performance  of  any 
satellite.  As  the  power  density  increases,  it  is  of 
critical  importance  to  have  packaging  technologies 
available  which  can  transport  the  generated  heat  to 
the 
the 
surrounding  environment  and  keep 
temperature  of  the  device  within  its  specified  limits. 
For  power  packages,  it  is  compulsory  to  provide  at 
the same time minimised thermal resistance and high 
protection  to  all  devices  and  circuits  with  respect  to 
contaminations,  mechanical  aggressions,  radiations 
and electromagnetic perturbations.  

GaN technology has recently made a breakthrough in the area of microwave electronics 
with  the  announcement  of  commercially  available  transistors  from  5W  to  over  200W  at 
microwave  frequencies.  Originating  from  a  major  industrial  transistor  vendor  in  Japan 
and also from Europe and the United States, equipment manufacturers, especially those 
related to space applications believe and push  for the  rapid insertion of  GaN electronics 
into  their  systems.  These  GaN  power  transistors  have  capability  to  increase  power 
density  by  more  than  an  order  of  magnitude  for  large  devices  compared  to  existing 
solutions.  

The consequences of this have direct impacts on packaging technology, thus the thermal 
resistance needs to be significantly reduced if the advantages obtained at die level are to 
be maintained at the module and equipment level. The AGAPAC project aimed to address 
this critical challenge for space satellite applications. 

AGAPAC  project  extended  beyond  current  state  of  play  for  high  thermal  dissipation 
composites using materials based on diamond solutions as well as on carbon nano-fibres, 
compatible  with  hybrid  micro-package  manufacturing  technologies.  The  base  for  GaN 
power transistor technology was developed within an ESA contract, while packaging was 
not  and  the  complementary  nature  of  ESA  funding  and  FP7  Space  funding  was  always 
acknowledged. 

157 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Project acronym 
Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 
Contract type 
FP7  call  and  strategic 
covered 
Total cost 
EU contribution 
Project’s website 
Coordinator 
Partners 

AGAPAC 
Advanced GaN Packaging "AGAPAC" 
FP7-SPACE; 
Project N°218851 
From 2008-10-01 to 2012-03-31 (completed) 
CP - Collaborative project (generic) 

  Sub-programme  area:  SPA-2007-2.2-01, 

theme 

SPA-2007-2.2-01 - Space technologies 

€2,848,830 
€1,764,628 
http://www.agapac.eu/ 
THALES ALENIA SPACE FRANCE 
7 partners  

11.3.3  The implementation of the project  

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

AGAPAC  core  objective  was  to  establish  a  space  compatible  European  supply  chain  for 
packaging  solutions  to  cover  the  need  for  GaN-based  HPAs  for  space  applications.  More 
precisely, the AGAPAC project technical objectives were to: 

  extend beyond state-of-the-art for high thermal dissipation composites using 
materials based on diamond solutions as well as on carbon nano-fibres, 
compatible with hybrid micro-package manufacturing technologies; and 

  develop a space compatible power hybrid able to withstand up to 150W of RF 

power in L band, with minimal junction temperature elevation. Note that power 
modules used in space commercial flights have a maximum RF power of 40W in L 
band. 

AGAPAC has brought together seven partners from various disciplines including industry 
from  material  science  (in  Spain  and  Austria),  thermal  and  mechanical  analyses  (United 
Kingdom  and  France),  with  the  packaging  industry  (France),  and  GaN  device 
manufacturing (Germany) around the needs of major space actors in Europe. 

Figure 75 AGAPAC Project partners 

Project partner 

Role 

Country 

United  Monolithic 

Semiconductors (UMS) 

GaN device manufacturing 

Germany 

 Plansee 

 Tecnalia 

 Egide 

Baseplate material supplier 

Baseplate material developer 

Package manufacturer 

Austria 

Spain 

France 

158 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Project partner 

Role 

CNES  -  The  Centre 

National d'Etudes Spatiales  

Mechanical analysis and modelling 

  The  University  of 

Thermal analysis and modelling 

Bristol 

Country 

France 

UK 

 Thales Alenia 

Coordinator  and  HPA  design, 
manufacturing and test 

France 

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

To  realise  this  project  objective,  the  partners  have  defined  sub-objectives  that  directly 
relate to seven work packages targeting: 

  WP1 Requirements and GaN components 
  WP2 Thermal and thermo-mechanical simulation and characterisation 
  WP3 High conductivity material development 
  WP4 Package development 
  WP5 HPA module assessment 
  WP6 Use and dissemination 
  WP7 Management 

It  was  noted  by  the  project  partners  that  the  project  implementation  was  a  smooth 
process; all the partners were equally on board and engaged throughout different project 
phases.  Some  felt  that  even  though  Plansee  decided  to  discontinue  commercial 
production  of  the  diamond  composite  operations,  this  had  not  put  a  pressure  on  the 
project results as Plansee decided to continue participation in the AGAPAC. Furthermore, 
after  the  decision  to  discontinue  the  diamond  composite  operations  in  2009  Plansee 
made  great  efforts  to  find  an  investor  who  was  able  to  successfully  continue  this 
technology.  Several  companies  had  seriously  indicated  their  interest  but  finally  none  of 
the  potential  transfer  partners  was  in  the  position  to  fund  the  transfer  and  further 
development  of  the  technology.  Plansee  still  maintains  the  patent  portfolio  of  the 
diamond-composite  technology  for  possible  licensing  and  transfer  options.    There  is  a 
possibility for the operation to resume if suitable business opportunities will arise. 

11.3.4  The project results and beneficiaries  

Space technologies were always a focal point and AGAPAC had an important role to play 
as  the  demand  for  GaN  transistors  was  expected  to  grow  significantly  with  the  highest 
turnover in 3G base station, sat-com and military uses. This project targeted packaging 
for  space  applications  enabling  the  European  stakeholder  to  maintain  and  subsequently 
strengthen the role of competitive leaders in the space domain.  

The  AGAPAC  project  developed  25  high-power  amplifier  packages.  These  packages  are 
hermetic, thus meeting ESA requirements for air-tight packages. Additionally, up to 65% 
added power efficiency was obtained using diamond silver base plate material. To ensure 
the integrity of these developments, extensive thermal evaluation of these materials was 
performed. 

159 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Further  testing  of  the  packages  were  carried  out  and  were  conducted  at  temperatures 
ranging  from  –  55 degrees  Celsius  to  125 degrees  Celsius  and  after  500  cycles  no 
failures  were  reported.  Additional  non-destructive  tests  were  performed,  such  as  three-
dimensional  (3D)  X-ray  tomography,  to  reveal  any  potential  voids  in  the  high  power 
amplifier  module.  AGAPAC  has  thus  presented  space  technologies  with  a  viable  and 
commercial packaging that not only enhances Europe's satellite technology, but enables 
Europe to maintain a strong position in the extremely competitive space industry. 

11.3.5  The implementation of the project results  

One  main  point  of  the  AGAPAC  was  to  secure  a  European  supply  chain  for  very  high 
thermal  conductivity  material  compatible  with  packaging  constraints  as  requested  in 
space  satellites  which  has  been  achieved.  The  results  obtained  by  the  AGAPAC 
consortium  were  present  at  the  main  event  in  the  field in  Europe  (European  microwave 
conference  in  Amsterdam  in  October  2012)  and  in  North  America  (international 
microwave symposium in Montreal Canada in June 2012). 

11.3.6 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations  

The  AGAPAC  project  involved  several  engineers,  technicians  and  operators  within  the 
project  coordinator  –  Thales  Alenia  Space.  Since  the  start  of  the  project,  one  women 
engineer  who  participated  in  the  AGAPAC  proposal,  was  hired  at  Thales  Alenia  in  a 
permanent  position.  She  had  not  been  directly  involved  in  the  technical  work,  but  the 
work load generated by AGAPAC allowed hiring her in the same team leading AGAPAC. 

The AGAPAC project involved the work of numerous engineers and technicians at Egide. 
No  formal  specific  gender  balance  was  set  up  for  the  project,  however  the  statistics  of 
the company show already an interesting contribution to tend towards equality principles, 
and  AGAPAC  was  certainly  involved  in  this  process.  The  AGAPAC  project  contributed 
maintaining  all  the  skills  at  Egide in  R&D  field,  and  provided  perspectives  of  increase  in 
employment within two or three years thanks to the new technological bricks developed. 
AGAPAC  also  reinforced  Egide's  visibility,  position,  and  expert  reputation  in  the  field  of 
high-end packages, especially for space applications. 

The contribution to AGAPAC strengthened the position of  Plansee as a European based 
provider  of  innovative  thermal  management  products.  Plansee's  silver-diamond-
composite  was  introduced  as  baseplate  material  for  high  power  RF  applications.  The 
material  passed  space  qualification  with  excellent  results  so  that  applications 
manufacturers  gained  confidence  in  that  material  also  for  other  thermal  management 
applications.  Successful  implementation  of  metal-diamond-composites  into  leading 
technology could facilitate dissemination of this promising material technology. 

The  new  developed  semiconductor  technology  GaN  is  now  used  for  first  devices 
commercially available. The qualification was finished successfully in December 2011 and 
first  customers  are  testing  the  devices  for  their  application.  But  for  high  power 
applications  most  customer  request  packaged  devices  with  more  output  power  than 
available today. To develop and design such devices the outcomes of AGAPAC is of high 
interest  and  can  contribute  to  secure  the  employment.  For  the  development  of  suitable 
package solutions for customers UMS intended to increase the staff.  

Tecnalia was visible in the thermal management field through its continued investigation 
of  materials  for  thermal  management  materials  as  well  as  its  role  as  a  member  of  the 
technical  committee  of  one  of  Europe's  key  thermal  management  conferences  (IMAPS 
France). AGAPAC enabled Tecnalia to continue its fundamental research in nano-particle 
filled  metal  matrix  composites  as  well  as  providing  the  basis  for  expansion  into  other 

160 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

nano-based  fields  of  investigation.  This  continued  development  enabled  security  of 
employment  for  existing  staff  as  well  as  new  employment  for  additional  staff  members 
linked to the fundamental research upon which the Tecnalia participation in AGAPAC was 
based. 

AGAPAC was the key factor in the development of the 3D X-ray activities in CNES lab. In 
fact, challenges brought by AGAPAC in terms of new material pushed CNES to purchase 
new  equipment  in  order  to  be  able  to  characterise  developed  materials.  This  3D  X-ray 
activity  started  under  the  pressure  of  AGAPAC  had  also  impacted  job  and  commercial 
activities in the lab shared with companies (public/private partnership and/or CNES spin-
off). Company NOVAMEMS is now proposing a full service on this new technology with an 
increase  of  10  %  of  its  turnover  as  well  as  a  spin-off  INTRASPEC  introduced  3DXray 
techniques in its magnetic microscopy offer. 

The  University  of  Bristol  trained  during  AGAPAC  a  wide  range  of  researchers  that 
contributed  to  the  AGAPAC  programme,  including  two  female  researchers  (one  EC,  one 
non-EC),  contributing  to  the  training  of  a  qualified  work  force  for  the  United  Kingdom's 
and European Commission (EC)'s economy. Further benefits arose in development novel 
experimental techniques and simulation approaches that will provide the basis for future 
employment,  in  part  related  to  enable  proposal  applications  such  as  to  the  European 
Space Agency (ESA), EC ENAIC and UK TSB and EPSRC.  

11.3.7 

Impacts on end users and wider social effects  

The  main  objectives  of  the  project  were  to  realise  packages  of  electronic  devices  with 
proven space compatibility (hermeticity) as well as a high thermal dissipation capacity so 
to  allow  the  possibility  of  increasing  the  power  generation.  Up  to  25  high  power 
amplifier packages with increased efficiency have been produced by the partner Egide 
according to Thales Alenia Space design. These packages have been demonstrated to be 
hermetic according to space standards. 

A  fully  European  supply  chain  was  developed  in  the  framework  of  AGAPAC  project  to 
provide  with  a  space  compatible  solution  for  very  high  power  applications  at  L  band, 
including  the  use  of  very  promising  wide  band  gap  technology  with  ten  times  higher 
power  density  capability.  Customised  package  is  now  able  to  cope  with  much  higher 
constraints  in  terms  of  thermal  management.  This  solution  allows  very  large  GaN 
components to operate in much improved reliability conditions. 

GaN  power  devices  (provided  by  UMS)  were  candidate  for  an  introduction  into  the 
European  preferred  parts  list  mastered  by  ESA  for  spacecraft.  The  use  of  such  a  device 
comes  together  with  the  development  of  a  package,  able  to  meet  the  requirements  in 
matter  of  dissipative  performance  while  keeping  a  level  of  reliability  compatible  with 
telecommunication  satellite.  AGAPAC  offers  a  strong  basis  where  main  difficulties  were 
solved,  despite  the  fact  that  the  base  plate  material  source  is  not  secured.  During  the 
project  progress  CNES  was  asked  by  the  French  Department  of  Defence,  a  substantial 
end user of such a product, to provide results of AGAPAC. A dedicated meeting with TAS 
/  CNES  (open  to  AGAPAC  partners)  was  going  to  be  organised  to  present  the  AGAPAC 
results, to DGA and other potential users.  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.3.8  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration  

As a result of AGAPAC, outside technical achievements, the interviewees felt that inside 
the consortium strong link among the consortium partners were created which gave rise 
to  other  collaborations  during  as  well  as  after  implementation  of  the  project. 
Furthermore,  one  of  the  interviewees  indicated  that  AGAPAC  would  not  have  supported 
by  a  national  scheme  as  there  was  no  national  funding  available  in  the  same  research 
area  as  the  project.  The  new  developed  semiconductor  technology  GaN  was  to  be  used 
for  the  first  devices  commercially  available.  The  qualification  was  finished  successfully 
and first customers are testing the devices for their application, with a series production 
projected  for  2014/2015.  AGAPAC  has  also  been  an  important  milestone  toward  the 
widespread  of  European  GaN  technology  including  power  packages  for  radio  frequency 
power amplifier into space  subsystem. Next  stage is to prepare for flight demonstration 
of such technology. 

11.3.9  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future  

The  FP7  funded  projects,  as  AGAPAC  helped  the  project  partners  to  network  and 
establish  partnerships  around  Europe  which  otherwise  would  not  be  possible.  Our 
consultation showed that AGAPAC had a large positive impact on all partners in terms of 
their  networking  platforms  between  the  European  institutions,  national  authorities,  and 
private companies including SMEs. This project allowed partners from various disciplines 
to work together which facilitated the exchange of ideas and knowledge sharing.  

11.3.10  Sources  

This section provides a list of references that helped to corroborate the achievements and 
impacts. To date we have extracted information from:  

1.  http://www.agapac.eu/presentacion.php 

2.  http://cordis.europa.eu/publication/rcn/14111_en.html 

3.  AGAPAC  :  Advanced  GaN  package  for  space,    presentation  by  TAS  at  Let's  embrace 

Space - FP7 Conference- Budapest 12-13 May 2011 

4.  AGAPAC Result In Brief - Becoming global with microwave technology 

5.  AGAPAC Consortium, Final Report  

6.  REA (2013): FP7 Space Projects managed by the REA - Overview of the Space Calls - 

Success stories and key projects, REA-S2/CBO/SDO/mjs 

7.  Rochette  S.  et  al:  182W  L  band  GaN  high  power  module  with  66%  power  added 

efficiency based on European technologies  

Interviewees 

Role 
Organisation 
Project partner 
PLANSEE 
University of Bristol  Project partner 
Project partner  
Tecnalia 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.4  AEROFAST 

11.4.1  Summary of the impact 

This case study focuses on the impact produced by activities of 
for  Future  spAce 
the  AEROFAST  project  (AEROcapture 
transportation),  as  well  as  by  the  related  streams  of  work. 
Currently,  space  vehicles  use  propulsive  techniques  making 
used  of  own  propellants 
to  slow  down  and  perform 
manoeuvres,  in  order  to  be  captured  into  orbit  around  a 
planetary body. 

The  aerocapture  technology  is  an  alternative  for  planetary  bodies  with  an  atmosphere, 
which  relies  on  atmospheric  drag  to  decelerate  a  spacecraft  and  place  it  in  its  circular 
orbit. It attractiveness lies on its potential to save up to 30 % of payload mass at launch 
time  by  reducing  fuel  requirements.  The  most  relevant  impact  generated  within  the 
project  is  the  completion  of  the  work,  enabling  to  advance  in  the  maturity  of  the 
aerocapture technology from TRL 2 to 3 to TRL 3 to 4. 

The  case  study  also  focuses  also  on  wider  impacts  achieved  within  the  project,  which 
include the future use of the project output as a reference work (including preparation of 
flight demonstration) for ESA Mars exploration and other missions. 

Relevant impacts have also been achieved by the project, through the advancements on 
guidance, navigation and control (GNC), in the field of planetary defence, as the projects 
results represented the baseline for the activities within the NEOShield project. 

11.4.2  Overview and strategic context 

In order to support human expansion into the solar system, projects related to the Space 
transportation  domain,  such  as  AEROFAST,  focus  on  developing  advanced  and  eco-
friendly  transportation  systems  to  move  humans  and  cargo  between  geostationary  and 
Low Earth orbits or return from Moon or Mars. 

The  objective  of  the  AEROFAST  project  was  to  design  an  Aerocapture  vehicle  and  to 
improve  the  aerocapture  technology,  which  uses  atmospheric  drag  to  slow  space 
vehicles.  The  technology  allows  for  a  large  amount  of  mass  saving  (up  to  30%)  at 
launch,  and  it  is  well  adapted  for  large  weight  missions  (Sample  return  missions  and 
manned missions).  

Aerocapture  has  been  reported  to  be  a  very  challenging  “system  level”  technology.  It 
requires  compromises  between  system  analysis  and 
integrated  vehicle  design, 
aerodynamics, aero-thermal environments, thermal protection systems (TPS), guidance, 
navigation  and  control  (GN&C),  instrumentation,  etc.  The  disciplines  mentioned  above 
require  integration  and  optimisation  as  a  whole  in  order  to  fulfil  mission-specific 
requirements. 

The  project  focused  on  advancing  from  a  technology  readiness  level76  (TRL)  between  2 
and 3 to a TRL between 3 and 4. Specific objectives included: 

  Define a project of Aerocapture demonstration 

76 (Technology Readiness Level – TRL – is a measure used to assess the maturity of evolving technologies from 
research  to  its  final  use  in  successful  mission)  during  its  development  and  in  some  cases  during  early 
operations. 

163 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  Make a significant progress in space transportation by increasing the TRL of the 

planetary relative navigation and the Aerocapture algorithm up to 5. 

  Build a breadboard to test in real time the pre-Aerocapture and Aerocapture GNC 

algorithms. 

  Demonstrate/prototype the thermal protection system for such a mission. 
  Define on-board instrumentation 

The  final  goal  was  thus  to  contribute  to  advancement  in  space  transportation,  e.g.  by 
making both lunar and Martian missions affordable, by preparing the ground for a flight 
demonstration on a planet with an atmosphere. 

Figure 76 Key information on the AEROFAST project 

Project acronym 
Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 
Contract type 
FP7  call  and  strategic 
covered 
Total cost 
EU contribution 
Project’s website 
Coordinator 

Partners 

AEROFAST 
Aerocapture for future space transportation 
FP7-SPACE;    SPA-2007-2.2-02  -  Space  transportation,  Project 
N° 218797 
From 2009-01-01 to 2011-09-30 (completed) 
CP - Collaborative project (generic) 

theme 

FP7-SPACE-2007-1 

EUR 2 985 856 
EUR 1 924 374 
http://www.microfcu.com/  
ASTRIUM S.A.S. 
ASTRIUM-ST Gmbh 
DEIMOS Engharia 
Amorim Cork Composites S.A. 
SAMTECH 
University of Roma - La Sapienza 
INETI 
STIL-BAS (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) 
Institute of Aviation 
Space Research Centre - Polish Academy of Sciences 
ONERA 
KYBERTEC 

Source: CORDIS 

11.4.3  The implementation of the project 

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

AEROFAST  started  in  January  2009  and  ran  for  31  months.  It  comprised  12  project 
partners.  The  activities  of  the  project  were  split  in  five  main  WPs,  directly linked  to  the 
specific project objectives mentioned in the section above. 

WP Name 
WP1 
Aerocapture 
overall design 

WP Description 
Define  a  project  of  aerocapture  demonstration  including  a 
Mars  observation  satellite  which  could  be  retained  by  ESA 
for its next exploration mission. 

WP Leader 

ASTRIUM-ST 
SAS 

WP2  Spacecraft 
design 

Design  the  mission  spacecraft  and  the  aerodynamic  heat 
shield to perform the aerocapture manoeuvre 

ASTRIUM-ST 
Gmbh 

WP3 Innovative 
thermal 
protections 

Demonstrate / prototype the TPS for such a mission 

Amorim  Cork 
Composites 
S.A. 

164 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

WP4  O/B  GNC 
fiction 
development  & 
validation 

Make  a  significant  progress  in  space  transportation  by 
increasing  the  TRL  of  the  planetary  relative  navigation  and 
the aerocapture algorithm up to 5 and build a breadboard to 
test  in  real  time  the  pre-aerocapture  and  aerocapture 
Graduate nonconvexity algorithms (GNCs) 

DEIMOS 
Engharia 

WP5  On-board 
instrumentation 

Define innovative scientific payloads to  further  improve the 
knowledge of the planet 

Overall 
WP6 
coordination  & 
management, 
and 
dissemination 

Coordination and management 

University  of 
Roma  -  La 
Sapienza 

ASTRIUM-ST 
SAS 
and 
KYBERTEC 

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

One  of  the  interviewees  reported  that  the  management  of  administrative  requirements 
and  the  necessity  of  coordinating  tight  deadlines  within  a  complex  project  proved  to  be 
challenging endeavours. In this sense, the interviewee suggested that the expertise and 
the  ability  of  the  project  coordinator  represented  an  important  driver  for  the  successful 
execution of the project.   

The  expertise  of  the  project  coordinator  was  also  recognised  in  the  ability  to  identify  a 
balance between research and industrial partners and activities. This approach enabled to 
have  developments  in  laboratory  taken  on-board  by  the  industry  and  further  supported 
thanks to their know-how.  

Such  concept  was  confirmed  by  another  interviewee,  which  further  reflected  on  the 
implications  of  the  management  approach  adopted  for  FP7  Space  projects.  The 
interviewee,  having  been  involved  in  many  ESA  projects  where  technical  background  is 
strong  on  the  institutional  side,  suggested  that  technical  expertise  ensures  that  the 
project goals are reached in most of the cases.  

Vice versa, it was suggested that the loose management within FP7 faces the challenge 
of  ensuring  that  the  work  proceeds  as  expected.  As  a  consequence,  this  task  strongly 
depends on the Coordinator or on the WP managers. This, in turn, generates the risk that 
these  actors  might  not  be  fully  committed  to  achieving  the  proposed  goals,  or  could 
defocus from the main objectives. It was however noted that, in the case of AEROFAST, 
the Coordination role has been effective. 

11.4.4  The implementation of the project results 

During  the  project  timeframe,  the  main  achievement  was  the  successful  completion  of 
the work.  

The team designed and simulated a typical space mission to test the concept. First, the 
initial  conditions  required  to  perform  each  phase  of  a  future  outer  space  mission  were 
established, including the launch, cruise and aerocapture phases. 

Then, the partners worked  on improving spacecraft design to meet these requirements. 
Algorithms  for  guidance,  navigation  and  control  (GNC)  systems  were  improved  in  a 
laboratory simulator.  

Complete mission was simulated in laboratory conditions to test spacecraft performance. 
The tests confirmed the feasibility of an aerocapture manoeuvre.  The  simulated mission 

165 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

was  successful  even  under  worst-case  scenarios,  while  remaining  within  mass  and 
budgetary constraints.  

The tests identified the biconic (aerodynamic) shape as the most appropriate choice for a 
spacecraft. 

Finally,  the  project's  prototype  of  a  spacecraft's  thermal  protection  system  based  on 
cork77 provided interesting results to be furthered explored beyond the boundaries of the 
project. 

Therefore,  the  AEROFAST  project  has  confirmed  the  feasibility  of  the  aerocapture 
manoeuvre: 

  The mission can be fulfilled even when considering the worst cases (due to a 

robust GNC strategy) 

  Feasible and coherent (with respect to mass, power, etc.) budgets were 

established  

No  major  barrier  has  been  identified,  demonstrating  the  interest  of  an  aerocapture 
manoeuvre. 

11.4.5 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations 

One  of  the  interviewed  partners  reported  that  AEROFAST  allowed  hiring  additional 
resources  with  a  different  background  (in  engineering).  It  also  enabled  to  upgrade  the 
company equipment in terms of engineering facilities.  

Another  interview  suggested  that  the  project  enabled  the  company  to  pursue  the 
development through the time and through different projects NEOShield and NEOShield 2 
of the guidance, navigation and control (GNC) algorithms developed within AEROFAST. 

Finally, another partner developed a Pyroelectric sensor for the analysis of the chemical 
reactions on the wall of the protect shield. As the pyroelectric sensor can also be used for 
other  gas  than  the  ones  relevant  in  the  aerocapture  manoeuvre,  the  organisation  is 
extending  its  utilisation  for  other  applications  outside  the  field  of  space,  i.e.  CO2  levels 
detection in mining activities for safety purposes.  

11.4.6 

Impacts on end users and wider social effects 

The project output will be used in the future as a reference work (including preparation 
of  flight  demonstration)  for  missions  like  those  upcoming  as  part  of  the  ESA  Mars 
exploration missions. 

Interviewees  suggested  that  the  innovation  related  to  the  cork  material  will  have  an 
impact  on  a  number  of  space  activities  and  missions.  As  an  example,  since  cork  can 
replace ceramic as thermo insulator with significant savings in terms of weight, it allows 
satellite  missions  to  increase  the  weight  that  can  be  dedicated  to  other  material  and 
technologies within the payload. 

77 Cork is the bark of the cork oak. It is used as raw material for insulation, flooring and products for areas as 

diverse as construction, fashion, design, health, energy production and the aerospace industry 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Moreover,  the  advancements  on  thermo  insulation  through  cork  are  expected  to  create 
opportunities in completely different sectors such as health and energy. 

Notably,  the  development  of  advanced  GNC  techniques  in  space  has  impact  in  fields  as 
the space debris remediation activities (removal of space pollution) and in the Planetary 
Defence field against the possible impact of an asteroid or comet on Earth. 

The  GNC  concept  developed  in  AEROFAST  has,  in  fact,  been  reutilised  and  largely 
extended  within  the  FP7  study  NEOShield  which  is  currently  at  the  end  of  its  second 
reporting  period  (third  year,  expected  project  end  in  May  2015).  NEOShield  has  an 
impact  on  the  current  European  activities  on  Planetary  Defence  against  the  threat  that 
asteroids  have  on  the  Earth.  In  this  case,  the  GNC  simulator  was  evolved  for  planetary 
defence purposes, and more specifically for approaching an asteroid and orbiting around 
it.  

Finally,  the  quality  of  the  research  performed  by  the  AEROFAST  project  has  been 
recognised by the relevant scientific community (including ESA Human Space Exploration 
team) and 14 articles were published in peer-reviewed journals. 

11.4.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration   

All interviewees suggested that the project was really important for their organisation, as 
it  provided  the  possibility  to  meet  scientists  and  experts  from  other  EU  Member  States. 
The  same  interviewee  suggested  that  the  contribution  of  FP7  Space  is  unique  in  this 
sense, since the country to which the partner belongs is not a Member of ESA and would 
have not supported the activities of the project due to financial constraints. 

Two  interviewees  remarked  that  FP7  funding  is  important  for  small/medium  companies 
because  it  allows  directing  efforts  to  areas  which  might  not  still  be in  the  programming 
lines of other institutions like ESA, or the National space agencies. So, in such cases, the 
funding  allows  the  development  of  precursor  activities  that  can  be  later  applied  to 
specific  projects  funded  by  other  entities.  This  was  very  important  both  for  AEROFAST 
and  NEOShield,  because  it  allowed  R&D  developments  before  the  launch  of  the  Space 
Situational Awareness (SSA) programme. 

11.4.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future   

As mentioned above, the case study suggests that project management expertise of the 
coordinator  is  crucial  for  the  project  itself  to  be  successful.  Focusing  in  particular  on 
financial  aspects,  it  was  suggested  that  the  coordinator  needs  to  be  experienced  and 
have an organisation that is capable to provide administrative and financial support to all 
of the participants – implicitly suggesting that large companies are better positioned than 
SMEs to participate as leaders. 

As  a  lesson  learned  for  H2020,  it  was  suggested  that  “user-friendliness”  of  financial 
information could be made easier, for example by: 

  Making online electronic distribution easier and simplifying electronic interfaces; 
  Using info days and NCPs networks to better to explain financial aspects to 

candidates, beneficiaries, etc.; 

  Empowering the helpdesk. 

167 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

One interviewee suggested that, looking to the European perspective, the selection of the 
topics  should  be  better  coordinated,  so  to  avoid  any  duplication  of  activities.  This 
reasoning was suggested for both: 

  ESA and FP7 activities on space transportation; 
  Different areas of Framework Programmes. In particular, it was suggested that 

FP7 Security and FP7 Space programmes were sometimes overlapping. 

11.4.9  Sources  

This section provides a list of references that help to corroborate the reported impact and 
in  particular  the  size  and  importance  of  the  innovation  outcomes  and  the  critical 
contribution of the FP. To date we have extracted information from:  

1.  Project website: http://www.aerofast.eu/  

2.  Partners project websites  

3.  AEROFAST Periodic report summaries 

4.  AEROFAST Exploitation of results 

5.  AEROFAST Final report summary 

6.  AEROFAST: Development of Innovative Thermal Protections 

7.  European  Commission,  Research  Executive  Agency:  FP7  Space  Projects  managed  by 

the REA: Overview of the Space Calls - Success stories and key projects 

8.  AEROFAST:  Functional  and  Real-Time  Simulation  for  Aerocapture  GNC  Assessment, 
Miguel  Hagenfeldt,  Andrea  Mafficini,  Vicente  Fernandez,  Sergio  Gómez,  Carlos  Valle, 
Pedro Palomo, Antonio Latorre 

9.  AEROFAST: Aerocapture for Future Space Transportation, H. Requiston, p. Augros, f. 

Bonnefond, JM. Bouilly, t. Lutz, h. Scheer 

10. Spacecraft  braking  simulation  marks  key  step 
http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/36074_en.html  

towards 

real 

flight 

test, 

11. A.  Mafficini  et  al.,  “Mars  Pre-Aerocapture  GNC  Concept  Design”,  1st  European 

Aerospace GNC Conference, Munich, Germany, 13-15 April 2011 

12. A.  Mafficini  et  al.,  “Mars  Pre-Aerocapture  GNC  Design  and  Performance”,  8th 
International ESA Conference on GNC, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, 5-10 June 2011 

List of interviewees  

Organisation  
Centrum Badań Kosmicznych 
STIL-BAS 
DEIMOS Space 

Role in the project 
Project manager Centrum Badań Kosmicznych 
Research scientist 
Project manager DEIMOS 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.5  FRESHMON and μFCU 

11.5.1  Summary of the impact 

This case study focuses on the impact produced 
by  the  activities  of  the  μFCU  and  FRESHMON 
projects,  as  well  as  by  the  related  streams  of 
work. One of the objectives of the case study is 
to  investigate  the  success  on  involving  SMEs 
and the impact of SMEs on project outcomes. In 
this  sense,  the  relevance  of  the  participation  of  SMEs  is  the  main  commonality  linking 
two  very  different  projects.  In  FRESHMON  SME  participation  represented  60%,  whereas 
in μFCU it hit 80%. In both cases the project coordinator was an SME. Both projects were 
successful in achieving both project results and wider impacts, namely: 

  μFCU: the development of a miniaturised Flow Control Unit (μFCU) outperforming 
existing technologies with respect to mass reduction, leak tightness, drift and long 
term stability, thus contributing to achieving the objective of European non-
dependence in the field of space 

  FRESHMON: the provision of high-resolution spatial geo-information on water 

quality parameters, addressing the user needs of both national and international 
authorities and private entities, as well as positive impacts on the industry, the 
research community and eventually the society thanks to the standardisation of 
water quality monitoring services 

11.5.2  Overview and strategic context 

μFCU 

μFCU  is  a  project  aimed  at  improving  European  non-dependence  in  the  field  of  space. 
Before the project, Europe had started some development activities but had no own high 
TRL technology for miniaturised flow control units for gas consuming thrusters. Even for 
normal sized FCUs the design of most suppliers relied on valves with US origin due to the 
lower leakage rates compared to European solutions. Therefore a flow control unit for EP 
systems was rated as critical space technology. 

The project focused on the development of a flow control unit (µFCU), designed based on 
a  commercial  component-of-the-shelf  (COTS)  approach,  with  core  components  and 
technologies being already developed for ground applications. To ensure the achievement 
of the necessary economies of scale enabling cost effective development and production, 
the  full  market  potential  was  addressed  by  choosing  a  design  scalable  to  thrusters  and 
neutralisers for satellite station keeping. 

The  objective  was  to  outperform  existing  technologies  with  respect  to  mass  reduction, 
leak  tightness,  drift  and  long  term  stability.  Furthermore,  the  new  design  shall  reduce 
complexity,  driver  electronics  requirements  and  AIT  effort,  as  well  as  improving 
modularity. 

The specific objectives included: 

  1: Reducing the FCU system mass to less than 100g per thruster (thruster + 

neutraliser flow line). 

  2: Using only components of European origin. 
  3: Achieving internal leakage rates below 1E-6 scc/s GHe over lifetime and extend 

temperature range beyond +90°C. 

  4: Demonstrating the operation with at least two flow ranges a) 1.5 sccm F.S. Xe, 

b) 50 sccm F.S. Xe 

  5: Reaching TRL 5 and prepare for a first mission towards TRL 7. 

169 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

  6: Using a modular concept and keep the design simple. 

Figure 77 Key information on the μFCU project 

μFCU 
Miniaturised Flow Control Unit 
FP7-SPACE; 
technologies, Project N° 284100 
From 2011-12-01 to 2013-09-30 (completed) 
CP-FP - Small or medium-scale focused research project 

  SPA.2011.2.2-01 

-  Space 

transportation 

theme 

FP7-SPACE-2011-1 

EUR 2 059 936 
EUR 1 428 212 
http://www.microfcu.com/  

AST Advanced Space Technologies GMBH 

Innovative Sensor Technology AG 
RHP-Technology GMBH & CO KG 
Staiger GMBH & CO KG 
TRANSMIT Gesellschaft Fuer Technologietransfer MBH 

Project acronym 
Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 
Contract type 
FP7  call  and  strategic 
covered 
Total cost 
EU contribution 
Project’s website 

Coordinator 

Partners 

Source: CORDIS 

FRESHMON 

As  inland  water  is  under  significant  pressure  from  agricultural  and  other  economic 
activities,  as  well  as  climate  change,  highly  detailed  maps  and  information  can  support 
authorities in detecting variations in water quality and aquatic ecosystems.  

The  'High  resolution  freshwater  monitoring:  Freshmon  GMES  downstream  services' 
(FRESHMON)  project  aimed  at  providing  EO-based  water  quality  services  for  this 
purpose.  The  project  entailed  the  development  of  a  new  service-line  for  the  continuous 
provision of Earth Observation based products, integrated with in situ and hydrodynamic 
modelling  components,  for  water  quality  monitoring.  More  specifically,  the  four  project 
objectives included: 

  Methodological research in improving and harmonising different earth-observation 
(EO)-based methodologies for retrieving water constituents and water depth, and 
assimilating this with hydrodynamic models, 

  Establishment of validation and quality management standards with end users 
  Provision of customisation, confidence and acceptance of EO products for end 

users 

  Establishment of a European business network of downstream inland water 

service providers and end-users. 

Figure 78 Key information on the FRESHMON project 

Project acronym 

Project full title 

Project identifiers 

Start and end date (status) 

FRESHMON 
High  Resolution  Freshwater  Monitoring:  FreshMon  GMES 
Downstream Services 
FP7-SPACE; 
the 
development  of  downstream  GMES  services,  Project  N° 
263287 
From 2010-12-01 to 2013-11-30 (completed) 

  SPA.2010.1.1-01 

-  Stimulating 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Contract type 
FP7  call  and  strategic  theme 
covered 
Total cost 
EU contribution 
Project’s website 

Coordinator 

CP - Collaborative project (generic) 

FP7-SPACE-2010-1 

EUR 2 714 300 
EUR 2 155 367 
http://www.freshmon.eu/  

EOMAP GMBH & CO.KG 

Partners 

Source: CORDIS 

Brockmann Consult GMBH  
Suomen Ymparistokeskus 
Eidgenoessische 
Abwasserreinigung Und Gewaesserschutz (EAWAG) 
Water Insight BV  

Anstalt 

Fur 

Wasserversorgung 

11.5.3  The implementation of the project 

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

µFCU  

The µFCU project  ran for 18 months starting from December 2011. The project was led 
by AST Advanced Space Technologies GMBH and foresaw the following activities: 

  A. the baseline design of (a) a miniaturised flow control unit based on 

conventional component technologies like solenoid valves and (b) a Xenon flow 
control unit with one inlet flow line and two outlet flow lines; 

  B. Component Development, including: 

-  Valves: the ones used for μFCU use an advanced plate anchor technology 

without bearing friction compared to a standard plunger; 

-  Flow Path Board to interconnect components, provide flow resistors and 
cavities and serve as the mechanical interface to the satellite panel; 

-  Particle Filters designed for a surface mount interface required by the 

integration to the Flow Path Board; 

-  Flow Sensor: Although not included in the initial design of the μFCU, a 

sensor for low Xenon gas flows was developed to measure flows in the low 
sccm range; 

  C. Prequalification Test Campaign: the tests of the μFCU technology demonstrated 
its capabilities in "a relevant environment" and thus reached technology readiness 
level (TRL) 5. 

The project included the following partners: 

  AST Advanced Space Technologies GmbH (project coordinator), coordinating the 

project and contributing with its expertise in electric propulsion, testing and space 
system engineering; 
Innovative Sensor Technology AG, contributing with its sensor know-how; 
 
  Staiger GmbH & Co. KG, supplying the project with their miniaturised solenoid 

valve technology and long term experience and heritage in valve development; 
  RHP-Technology GmbH & Co. KG, contributing with their experience in producing 

flow boards with sub-mm channel; 

  TRANSMIT Gesellschaft für Technologietransfer mbH, making available their test 

infrastructure and experience from electric propulsion qualification tests. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

FRESHMON 

FRESHMON  started  on  2010-12-01  with  duration  of  36  months.  The  project  was  led  by 
the  German  company  EOMAP.    Within  the  FRESHMON  project,  the  following  Work 
Packages and activities were foreseen: 

  WP1: Project coordination - user needs assessment, analysis of the EU directive 

requirements, harmonisation and standardisation of products and their meta data, 
improvement of Service Level Agreements and evolution of the service concept. 

  WP2: Service package definition - user needs assessment, analysis of the EU 

directive requirements, harmonisation and standardisation of products and their 
meta data, improvement of Service Level Agreements and service concept 
evolution 

  WP3, WP4 and WP5: Service development – development of a robust, 

interchangeable infrastructure architecture with standardised interfaces and 
metadata standards, as well as robust and reliable algorithms 

  WP6: Market preparation – creation of user acceptance of developed products and 

dissemination of the services 

  WP7: Business and service networking – definition of the service network. 

The  core  consortium  included  five  partners.  EOMAP  (coordinator)  acted  as  the 
coordinator of FRESHMON and was responsible for Work Package 4, EO service provision. 

Brockmann  Consult,  a  German  service  provider,  with  expertise  in  the  software 
integration of processors, was responsible for Work Package 3,  EO service research and 
development. 

The  Finnish  Environment  Institute  (SYKE)  is  a  large  Earth  Observation  service 
provider,  environmental  research  organisation  and  environmental  authority.  SYKE  was 
responsible for Work Package 2, Service definition. 

Water Insight BV is an SME born as a spin-off of the Institute of Environmental Studies 
at the Free University of Amsterdam. Water Insight BV was responsible for Work Package 
6, as well as for  setting up the Web portal and executing campaigns for calibration and 
validation of FRESHMON Downstream services. 

The  Swiss  Federal  Institute  of  Aquatic  Science  and  Technology  (EAWAG)  has 
specific expertise in fresh water modelling. EAWAG was responsible for  Work Package 5 
(Assimilation and validation). 

The project also involved end users, i.e.  national organisations responsible for aquatic 
systems.  The  following  organisations  were  involved:  LUBW,  Germany;  Deltares,  the 
Netherlands;  Tartu  Observatory,  Estonia;  TEKES,  Finland;  SYKE/MK,  Finland;  SYKE/VK, 
Finland; FMA, Finland; BfG, Germany; BAW, Germany; WVZ, Switzerland. 

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

µFCU  

All  interviewed  partners  suggested  that  the  implementation  obstacles  were  mainly  of 
technical  nature,  such  as  the  challenges  of  identifying  a  material  that  could  be  bonded 
effectively and relatively easily between layers (so to minimise gas leakages) ensuring at 
the same time that the welding with valves would be feasible. 

Non-technical  barriers  included  the  difficulties  for  SMEs  in  complying  with  the  project 
the  project 
the 
time  schedule.  It  was  noted 

technical  experience  of 

that 

172 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

manager/coordinator (which had previous experience with administrative requirements of 
FP projects) proved invaluable in: 

  Setting the right scope for the project, so to ensure overall feasibility 
  Managing activities and deadlines. 

It  was  remarked  that  for  SMEs  at  their  first  experience  with  FP7  the  rules  were 
challenging.  In  particular,  one  challenge  underlined  by  one  interviewee  was  the 
calculation  of  indirect  costs.  Since  cost  per  person  is  confidential  and  activities  typically 
do  have  indirect  costs,  it  was  suggested  that  it  may  be  difficult  for  the  coordinator  to 
assess  if  indirect  costs  are  calculated  correctly.  In  the  project,  this  issue  was  solved  by 
pooling employees by category. 

Further  to  the  points  above,  one    interviewee  noted  that,  in  particular  when  SMEs 
participate  in  projects,  it  is  important  that  the  project  leader    is  an  industrial  company 
focused  on  the  achievement  of  technical  advancement,  rather  than  a  non-technical 
project management specialist focused mainly on the production of deliverables.  

FRESHMON 

An  important  barrier  to  implementation  identified  by  one  interviewee  is  the  possible 
conflict  of  commercial  interest  between  overlapping  partners,  in  the  case  the  output  of 
the project is close to the market. 

One interviewee reported that within the project it was not possible to find a legal frame 
between  companies  for  the  exploitation  of  results.  This  reduced  the  technology  sharing 
between  partners  due  to  the  anticipation  of  competition  later  in  time.  As  a  result,  also 
post-project  collaboration  opportunities  among  industrial  players  were  limited  (whereas 
links with academia were successfully created).  

Moving to relevant barriers after the implementation of the project, it was suggested that 
the project supported successfully the commercial driven innovation to develop new EO / 
Copernicus services. With respect to the market response worldwide to the new services, 
a  very  good  chance  to  establish  these  sustainable  services  with  significant  benefit  for 
clients is expected by project partners; however, two significant risks and barriers, which 
might concretely danger the sustainable success, were identified: 

  Politically: No boundaries between free/public Copernicus and commercial are 
yet defined, and there is a definite risk of overfunding with increasing impact of 
market distortion. Free market mechanisms to innovate and develop economic 
sustainable services are reported to be undermined by current EU and ESA 
initiatives. As examples,  

-  a) myOcean Copernicus Service is going to compete with commercially 
available services by increasing the resolution of myOcean services.  

-  b) ESA projects such as Global Lakes increasingly support user 

communities with free products and services, which are already in place 
commercially.  

-  c) focusing on ESA processors, ESA calls to tenders aim at providing value 

free adding processors, which compete with commercial available 
processors 

  Technically: Up to now, the EU and ESA invested hundreds of millions into 

funding programmes, but failed to provide a suitable data infrastructure that 
allows accessing Sentinel-data for industrial production in global scales. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.5.4  The implementation of the project results  

µFCU  

The project successfully enabled the development of an electric micro-propulsion system. 
The  new  unit  shows  clear  system  advantages  compared  competing  solutions  both  in 
terms of lower mass and complexity. Thus, the developed µFCU has the potential provide 
a clear cost reduction for complex flow control and distribution systems. Moreover, µFCU 
outperformed all existing flow controls thanks to lower leakage and enhanced operational 
range and lifetime: 

  The total mass of the system is below 60 g, vis-à-vis 400 g – 1 Kg of existing 

technologies; 

  The cycle lifetime capability was reported to exceed the satellite control 

application requirements by a factor of three; 

Considering that satellites are  relatively small objects and that propulsion is  responsible 
for  a  large  share  of  the  weight,  the  introduction  of  µFCUs  is  expected  to  provide  the 
following benefits: 

  Free weight for components of the payload; 
  Save money – considering the rough assumption that sending one kilogram of 
material into space costs 10,000 dollars, the introduction of µFCUs could offer 
significant savings, also considering that some missions have a large number of 
thrusters (e.g. with total weight now up to 24 kg).  

Importantly, the project adapted technologies from applications in fields such as those in 
the medical or chemical industries, modifying them for the operational and environmental 
demands of space applications. As a consequence, the reliability of the components was 
already proven. 

Notably, the fact that sourced components are European guarantees the non-dependence 
on other countries.  

Finally,  the  technology  is  also  expected  to  be  adapted  to  other  flow  control  and 
distribution tasks, as required e.g. by chemical or cold gas propulsion systems. 

FRESHMON 

The  FRESHMON  project  aimed  at  creation  of  continuous  and  accepted  downstream 
services for inland water monitoring at European level, through: 

  a) Methodological research in improving and harmonising different earth-

observation (EO)-based methodologies for retrieving water constituents and water 
depth, and assimilating this with hydrodynamic models, 

  b) Establishment of validation and quality management standards with end users, 
c) Providing customisation, confidence and acceptance of EO products for end 
 
users and 

  d) Establishment of a European business network of downstream inland water 

service providers and end-users. 

These objectives were fully achieved: an operational, commercial high resolution service 
in  the  project  now  exists,  (see: 
for  Inland  and  Coastal  waters  at  outlined 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

http://www.eomap.com/store)  or  the  websites  of  the  other  companies  involved  in  the 
project. 

Even  if  actual  commercialisation  did  not  happen  during  the  project,  it  started  a  few 
months later. The service is now on the market, with a demand both from agencies and 
industry.  

In  the  next  years  the  global  market  size  is  expected  to  be  worth  about  €10  m,  with  a 
growth up to €100 m worldwide in ten years. The enabled market (i.e. the one fuelled by 
the EO services) is estimated to be even bigger. 

Another important achievement was the setup of a service for standardising data, which 
is  important  for  end  users  as  it  makes  different  water  quality  services  provided  by 
different  players  comparable  by  end  users,  which  do  not  necessarily  share  the  same 
technical expertise. 

11.5.5 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations 

µFCU  

From  the  marketing  point  of  view,  the  consortium  succeeded  in  producing  a 
miniaturised  the  flow  control  unit.  The  customers  supported  the  project  in  terms  of 
defining  specifications,  and  at  the  time  of  writing  are  in  the  process  of  deciding  if  the 
technology will be used as a baseline for future activities.  

Considering the size of market, one of the interviewees remarked that this is an opening 
one,  as  electric  propulsion  is  reaching  the  state  of  the  art  now.  A  foreseen  was  made 
about the possibility of delivering miniaturised flow control units for five satellites.  

Also  in  order  to  expand  this  market,  another  significant  impact  for  the  involved 
organisations  is  the  successful  award  of  another  FP7  grant  to  the  Miniaturised  Pressure 
Regulator (mPRS) project, which builds on the knowledge basis of µFCU. The objective of 
the project is to increase the maximum possible pressure from 10 bars to 350. 

In  addition  to  this,  thanks  to  the  project  activities  one  partner  developed  a  cold-gas 
thruster using the valves developed in µFCU. This development was so impressive that a 
flight  test  (foreseen  2015)  was  successfully  scheduled  to  proceed  towards  the 
achievement of the final TRL levels. 

Moreover,  the  expertise  gathered  within  the  project  helped  another  company  to  access 
new  revenues  outside  the  space  domain:  one  interviewee  reported  that  they  are  now 
supplying a customer with a perfect bonding process thanks to the technology developed 
within the project.  

Remarkably, for some project partners μFCU was the first project related to space, thus 
leading companies outside the space domain to bring in their competences  – as  well as 
to  access  new  opportunities.  This  has  helped  the  EU  space  industry  to  gain  a  leading 
position in space gas fluidic control and distribution systems. 

Moving  to  the  impact  in  terms  of  internal  mechanisms,  the  same  interviewee 
suggested  the  project  has  led  the  company  to  adapt  the  internal  processes  to  space 
activities, i.e. on gathering the required documentation to produce parts and components 
for  space,  as  well  as  on  adapting  processing  tests  and  training  staff.  The  project  also 
supported  their  investments  in  facilities  for  manufacturing  (e.g.  of  microchannels)  that 
were not previously owned. This in turn caused the increase in employment, through the 
recruiting of one new employee for manufacturing. 

175 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Another interviewee suggested that the company started with two people and due to the 
project  and  its  outcomes  hired  four  additional  employees.  It  was  remarked  that  this 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  FP7,  as  µFCU  provided  substantial  funding  to 
project  partners  for  a  rather  long  period,  enabling  companies  to  create  stable 
partnerships and to do business together. 

FRESHMON 

For  one  of  the  interviewees,  the  improved  service  readiness  on  high  resolution  water 
quality  monitoring  was  the  concrete  outcome,  with  first  commercial  projects  for  the 
services started in 2014.  

This  was  facilitated  by  the  increased  acceptance  by  clients  (agencies,  water  industry), 
which  was  reported  to  be  noticeable  especially  in  the  past  few  month,  e.g.  with  first 
water agencies preparing for implementation of the EO services.  

The  interviewed  company  foresees  the  service  line  to  be  financially  sustainable  from 
early year on with enough subscription services, after further improvements and setup of 
industrial production capacities early in 2014 after the completion of the project.   

Moreover,  three  of  the  partner  organisations  are  now  working  together  on  a  follow  up 
project,  Global  Lakes  Sentinel  Services  (GlaSS).  The  project  has  a  much  broader  focus 
than  FRESHMON.  As  the  latter  considered  lakes  that  were  already  served  by  project 
partners, GLaSS aims at developing an integrated system with innovative functionalities 
to ingest, archive, process and distribute large quantities of data from the upcoming ESA 
satellites Sentinel 2 and 3 for lake and reservoir monitoring worldwide. 

For  one  of  the  organisations,  another  impact  of  FRESHMON  consisted  in  extending  the 
user base for one of their products (a portable spectrometer). 

11.5.6 

Impacts on end users and wider social effects   

µFCU  

One of the key achieved objectives was to provide support to European non-dependence 
with  respect  to  valves,  which  before  the  project  were  manufactured  exclusively  by  US 
players. 

In  an  ESA  tender,  the  project  coordinator  was  invited  to  make  a  proposal  for  the 
manufacturing  of  the  microfluidic  control  units.  The  project  ran  for  22  months  and 
focused  on the basic technology (board, valves, filters and  electronics). The  coordinator 
of  the  project  is  now  listed  as  a  potential  European  supplier  of  ESA  for  a  critical 
technology.  

It was  remarked that the project thus helped  to build a consortium able to supply ESA, 
with  the  coordinator  collecting  all  the  subcomponents  from  partners  and  doing  the 
system integration. 

One  interviewee  also  suggested  that  advancements  such  as  those  in  the  bonding  of 
titanium and stainless steel have a high-potential in the field of the space industry. This 
mainly  because  they  eventually  enable,  through  the  development  of  the  μFCU,  improve 
European non-dependence by filling in a gap identified in the list of critical technologies.  

At  the  same  time,  the  project  created  opportunities  for  SMEs.  An  interviewed  SME  is 
already  running  a  follow-up  project  again  organised  by  the  same  project  leader: 

176 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Miniaturised  Pressure  Regulator  (mPRS).  Notably,  in  the  follow  up  projects  out  of  five 
partners  there  are  three  that  are  working  again  in  the  consortium,  indicating  that  the 
project effectively managed to create stable European partnerships. 

FRESHMON 

According  to  the  interviewees,  wider  impacts  are  expected  to  be  achieved  on  the 
industry, as outlined in the sections above. 

Moving  to  the  research  community,  new  methods  were  developed  and  published; 
therefore a positive impact is also suggested to have been achieved. 

Considering  the  impacts  on  EU  policy,  a  white  paper  for  the  European  Commission  was 
prepared under FRESHMON and is still being discussed to be implemented to improve the 
directive  monitoring  in  Europe,  and  first  national/state  agencies  are  now  going  to 
implement the services into their business.  

Moving finally to the society, impacts have not yet been achieved. In spite of this, in the 
frame of marketing campaigns the value of the high resolution services was suggested to 
be  demonstrated  also  for  the  public,  such  as  bathing  tourists  or  divers,  with  quite  a lot 
impact on public discussions in Australia78. 

One  of  the  interviewees  remarked  that  FRESHMON  supported  the  “shift”  from  pure 
coastal applications of water quality services only to inland waterways applications. 

11.5.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration  

µFCU  

As  mentioned  in  the  sections  above,  FP7  supported  the  performance  of  the  projects, 
which  could  not  be  funded  for  a  similar  budget  and  timeframe  by  any  possible 
alternative. 

As already mentioned above, the available funding supported the participants’ expansion 
in terms of knowledge base, employment/size and market opportunities within the space 
domain and outside it. 

FRESHMON 

One  interviewee  reported  that  the  contribution  of  FP7  has  a  real  positive  impact  if 
coupled with commercial motivation on the sustainable economic value of new services, 
which  is  the  most  important  driver  to  create  innovation  and  new  services,  in  the  most 
cost-effective way. 

Another interviewee suggested that the funding provided was crucial; otherwise it would 
have been impossible to set up such a large project.  

78 11.  http://watersportnews.com/news/story/299301/eomap-modelling-shows-whats-under-our-

water/full_story.html  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

A  key  point  has  been  reported  to  be  the  amount  and  the  timing  of  financial  support: 
Believers  of free market mechanisms will tend to invest  own money  or organise private 
investors  in  a  free  market  economy.  Still,  the  funding  from  the  project  was  reported  to 
allow the beneficiary to reduce related financial risk thanks to co-financing.  

11.5.8  The role of SMEs 

µFCU  

All interviewees suggested that SMEs were a key driver behind the speed of the project: 
it was possible to have technical discussions directly with the decision-makers within the 
companies, so risky decisions could be taken very quickly. The owners themselves of the 
partner  companies  were  involved,  thus  helping  to  achieve  interim  and  final  project 
results in short timeframes. 

One interviewee remarked that, vice-versa, in other projects it can take months to have 
final  signatures  and  “green-light”  for  important  decisions,  since  the  decision  making 
process  would  need  to  start  from  the  project  manager  and  make  its  way  through  the 
decision maker(s) within the company. 

FRESHMON 

Interviewees  provided  different  feedbacks:  one  suggested  that  cooperation  was 
excellent, thanks to the presence of a common goal for all organisations involved.  

As  mentioned  above,  another  interviewee  underlined  that  an  important  barrier  to 
implementation  of  the  project  was  the  conflict  of  commercial  interest  between  partners 
(in  this  case  SMEs)  with  overlapping  competences,  which  prevented  fully  transparent 
knowledge sharing.  

Considering  barriers  that  are  particularly  relevant  for  SMEs,  one  interviewee  suggested 
that the biggest one is always cash flows. In the case of FRESHMON, it was reported that 
very  good  coordination  and  fast  decision  times  (which  are  typically  of  SMEs)  prevented 
these  issues  from  happening.  It  was  underlined  however  that  sloppy  management  of 
payments  can  cause  huge  problems  for  SMEs  –  which  is  more  probable  in  case  large 
organisations with no cash flows issues are leading the projects.  

11.5.9  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future 

µFCU  

Considering the barriers encountered in the project, the key takeaway is that very good 
coordination is needed to ramp up complex projects.  

One  of  the  interviewees  strongly  appreciated  the  high  freedom  allowed  by  FP7  in 
changing  activities  at  the  consortium  level  as  long  as  the  project  is  on  track.  It  was 
remarked  that  this  is  not  the  case  in  ESA  projects.  As  a  consequence,  the  interviewee 
expressed  the  hope  that  in  Horizon  2020  the  “open”  calls  will  survive,  so  to  provide  a 
field of technology in which innovative – even  if unexpected  – ideas can be awarded as 
long as they are sound. 

Another  raised  point  by  all  interviewees  relates  to  the  opportunity  of  improving 
knowledge  sharing  thanks  to  enhanced  technical  coordination  by  the  European 

178 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Commission. It was mentioned that in ESA projects, usually there is a supervisor with an 
overview of the other projects, which is an advantage in terms of potential synergies and 
minimisation  of  risks  related  to  duplication  of  efforts.  It  was  therefore  suggested  that 
also in FP7 the role of “technical advisor” could be introduced. One interviewee expressed 
the  need  of  avoiding  “competition”  between  REA  and  ESA,  as  this  might  lead  for 
difficulties  for  beneficiaries  of  FP7  activities  to  be  awarded  with  follow-up  contracts  by 
ESA itself. 

Finally,  one  interviewee  suggested  that  the  organisation  of  dissemination  plans  and 
activities  by  REA  would  be  useful  for  project  partners.  The  example  provided  was  the 
possible attendance to the Space Propulsion Conference to raise awareness of the results 
of the most successful projects. 

FRESHMON 

A key lesson learned suggested by one interviewee is the importance of setting realistic 
project  goals:  it  was  remarked  that  sometimes,  in  other  projects  in  which  the 
organisation  was  involved,  the  description  of  work  included  activities  that  are  almost 
impossible  to  achieve  –  while  at  the  same  time  impossible  for  the  Commission  to  be 
evaluated. The same interviewee also suggested that small teams of partners are better 
suited  to  efficiently  achieved  project  objectives.  In  this  sense,  FRESHMON  as  a  project 
with six partners was judged appropriate in terms of size. 

Considering  the  market  opportunities  for  players  after  the  project,  particular  care  was 
suggested to be put on the effects of market distortion mechanisms, as explained above. 

It  was  also  suggested  that  an  “Open  board”  on  Earth  Observation,  aimed  at  discussing 
what  is  valuable  to  be  funded  and  what  not,  could  help  allocating  budget  on  real  new 
innovation.  Such  board  could  see  as  members  research  companies  and  research 
agencies,  and  could  rely  on  an  open  database  or  wiki  detailing  what  is  the  state  of  the 
art.  

11.5.10  Sources  

This section provides a list of references that help to corroborate the reported impact and 
in  particular  the  size  and  importance  of  the  innovation  outcomes  and  the  critical 
contribution of the FP. To date we have extracted information from:  

1.  μFCU project website http://www.microfcu.com    

2.  FRESHMON project website http://www.freshmon.eu  

3.  CORDIS public information including µFCU Result In Brief, Final Report Summary - 

µFCU, Final Report Summary – FRESHMON, etc. 

4.  µFCU Missions scenario description 

5.  µFCU A miniaturised Flow Control Unit for Xenon 

6.  µFCU Results of a Prequalification Test Campaign 

7.  FRESHMON Final Report 

8.  FRESHMON Policy Brief (2011) 

179 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

9.  FRESHMON Position Paper 

10. FRESHMON Service Portfolio 

11. EOMAP (FRESHMON coordinator) project website www.eomap.com/news  

12. http://watersportnews.com/news/story/299301/eomap-modelling-shows-whats-

under-our-water/full_story.html  

Table of interviewees 

Organisation  
AST Advanced Space Technologies GmbH 

Project 
µFCU 

RHP-Technology GmbH & Co. KG 
Water Insight 
EOMAP GMBH & CO.KG 

µFCU 
FRESHMON 
FRESHMON 

180 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.6  BIOSMHARS 

11.6.1  Summary of the impact 

The  BIOSMHARS  project  has  developed,  calibrated  and  validated  a  mathematical  model 
to  predict  the  transportation  of  bioaerosols  in  a  closed  environment  and  the  concurrent 
spread  of  bio-contamination.  It  is  a  unique  predictive  model  that  could  have  several 
applications  in  the  future.  For  example,  the  modelling  developed  could  be  applied  to 
enabling  a  better  prevention  for  contamination  within  closed  or  semi-closed  habitats 
these include public buildings, hospitals, aircrafts, cruise boats, schools.  

The nature of the project calls for a multidisciplinary and international collaboration that 
was  made  possible  thanks  to  FP7  Space  research  programme  that  allows  putting 
together the best teams, independently of their geographical location. 

11.6.2  Overview and strategic context  

Bio-contamination  in  manned  spacecraft  can  significantly  impact  humans’  health  and 
there is a need for effective bio-contamination control measures.  

"On long space flights, some lasting up to hundreds of days, a human's immune system 
weakens  and  muscles  atrophy.  At  the  same  time,  some  bacteria  rapidly  grow  stronger 
and may mutate into antibiotic-resistant variants. The longer the space flight, the larger 
the  crew's  health  risks  and  resultant  problems.  It  is  important  to  increase  our 
understanding  of  how  bio  aerosols  are  created,  how  they  spread  in  the  indoor  air  and 
why they survive in exceptional conditions" (Consultation, 2014).79 

The  BIOSMHARS  project  aimed  to  develop,  to  calibrate  and  to  validate  a 
mathematical  model  to  predict  the  transportation  of  bioaerosols  in  a  closed 
environment and the concurrent spread of bio-contamination 

BIOSMHARS aimed to initiate the first phase and first step in the multiphase approach to 
allow  better  control  of  bio-contamination  during  space  missions.  BIOSMHARS  aimed  at 
providing  tools  to  help  to  establish  a  better  bio-contamination  control  strategy  in  space 
craft.  The  long  term  objective  of  the  project  was  to  develop  a  mathematical  model  to 
describe  the  bio-contamination  in  confined  spacecraft  environments.  In  the  end,  the 
model  should  have  allowed  predicting  bio-contamination  dispersion  and  deposition  and 
help  to  implement  countermeasures  in  space  crafts  based  on  current  knowledge  of 
science and technology.  

The  project  was  divided  into  operational  phases  that  were  undertaken  simultaneously. 
These were: 

1.  Phase  1:  Development  of  a  predictive  model  for  microbial  contamination in  confined 
environments  and  validation  of  the  model  in  ground  facilities.  In  this  phase  current 
known models were evaluated and the best model was calibrated both physically and 
biologically.    Subsequently,  the  model  was  validated  in  spacecraft  analogue  ground 
facility. Two milestones for this phase were: 

-  Development and validation of a model to predict microbial contamination 
in a confined environment analogue to a space craft without any human 
activity; and 

79 http://www.vtt.fi/news/2013/30102013_biokontaminaatio.jsp?lang=en. Access 27/10/14 16:19 

181 

 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

-  Development and validation of a model to predict microbial contamination 
in a confined environment analogue to a space craft with human activity. 

2.  Phase  2:  Identification  of  adequate  proactive  sanitary  control  measures  and  rescue 
countermeasures,  and  validation  of  these  strategies  in  ground  facilities.  The 
milestones for this phase were: 

-  Translation of model predictions into a monitoring strategy with 

- 

determination of preferred sampling locations and optimised sampling 
frequency; and 
Implementation of proactive and rescue countermeasures to remain or 
return below the threshold levels of microorganism as defined by the 
international space agencies standards. 

3.  Phase  3:  Validation  of  the  predictive  model  in  space  environment.  The  developed 
model  and  sanitary  control  programme,  validated  in  phase  1  and  2  for  ground 
facilities, was validated for in-flight environmental conditions given the specific nature 
of the confined space craft in-flight and the restricted hygienic protocols imposed on 
the crew members during their space mission. Therefore, the impact of these space-
specific conditions on the predictive model were validated, including the following: 

-  Space-specific parameters in the model and physical validation of the 
model (e.g. update air flow dynamics for in microgravity conditions). 
Impact of space-specific parameters on microorganisms and biological 
validation of the model (e.g. update microbial surface attachment and 
growth dynamics for microgravity conditions). 

- 

4.  Phase  4:  The  final  phase  comprised  the  integration  of  the  previous  phases  and  the 

actual implementation in space crafts and space missions. 

11.6.3  The implementation of the project  

Project partnership, governance and implementation 

BIOSMHARS run for almost two years between June 2011 and May 2013. The total cost 
of  the  project  was  €742,342  with  an  EU  contribution  being  €493,345.  The  project  was 
coordinated in France and BIOSMHARS is an example of a collaborative project where six 
partners were involved in the partnership and these were:  

1.  MEDES - the French Institute for Space Physiology and Medicine; 

2.  SCK-CEN - the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre; 

3.  IBMP – the Russian Institute for BioMedical Problems  

4.  UEF - the University of Eastern Finland - Expertise on the medical impact of indoor 

microbial contamination; 

5.  VTT  -  the  Technical  Research  Centre  of  Finland  -  Expertise  on  mathematical 

modelling; and 

6.  IBP - Institute of Biophysics of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The project was divided in six work packages and table below outlines key objectives of 
all work packages.  

BIOSMHARS Work Packages 

Objectives 

WP1  
Management  
Leader MEDES 

The management WP consisted of two main tasks with 
the following objectives: 
-  To  manage  the  project  ensuring  that  the  project 
achieves 
the  allocated 
resources  and  to  support  all  the  administrative, 
contractual and financial parts. 

its  objectives  within 

-  To coordinate the project activities, by ensuring and 
facilitating  the  communication  within  the  project, 
and  supporting  the  project  dissemination  and 
outreach. 

WP2 
Scientific 
roadmap Leader SCK 

and 

technical 

- 

-  Review  of 

current  knowledge  on  microbial 
contamination  control  in  space  crafts,  which  will 
encompass  a  comprehensive  literature  study  and 
the  identification  of  shortcomings  in  the  current 
available data and technologies 
Identification experiments and data sets needed for 
improvement  via  predictive  modelling  of  microbial 
bio-contamination 

WP3  
BIOS facility management  
Leader IBP 

WP4  
Model 
calibration Leader VTT 

development 

WP5  
Model validation in BIOS  
Leader IBMP 

-  The  proposition  of  a  future  scientific  and  technical 

roadmap for space application 

-  To provide access to BIOS facility 
-  To upgrade the facility 
-  To operate the facility during the experiments.  

-  Develop  and  calibrate  a  model  that  allows  to 
describe  and  predict  airborne  microbial  bio-
contamination dispersion in closed habitats. 

and 

-  Experimental Validation of Model in BIOS 
-  Performance of experiments in BIOS to validate the 
integrated  model  in  confined  spacecraft  analogue 
environment. 

WP6  
Promotion and dissemination  
Leader MEDES 

-  The  objective  of  this  work  package  is  to  promote 
and disseminate the results of BIOSMHARS towards 
the  general  public,  the  youngest,  and  the  scientific 
community and towards industrials. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Specific tasks of each work package are presented in Figure below.  

Figure 79 BIOSMHARS Work Packages 

Key implementation obstacles and problem solving practices 

Regardless  the  complexity  of  the  project  and  the  involvement  of  researchers  with 
different backgrounds, and limited budget, BIOSMHARS manage to finish on time and on 
budget. 

11.6.4  The project results and beneficiaries  

As  stated  in  its  Final  Report,  the  BIOSMHARS  project  has  contributed  significantly  to  a 
better understanding of bio-aerosols distribution in confined environments. This is in fact 
the  first  study  that  has  been  able  to  develop  a  model  to  predict  such 
propagation. 

The  conclusion  of  the  project  officer  is  that  the  “project  has  achieved  most  of  its 
objectives for the period with relatively minor deviations”. 

The project has contributed to: 

  The development of a preliminary calibrated predictive model for bio-

contamination in closed environments, validated in a facility representative of a 
spacecraft; 

  The Calibration of the model with a real bio-aerosol; 
 

It is the first study to characterise the dissemination and survival of 
microorganisms (and their genetic material) in real confined environment after 
introduction via aerosol; 

  Has made a significant contribution for future studies on bio-contamination in 

space, and more generally, in close habitats; a BIOSMHARS has in simple terms 
developed a predictive model for bio contamination and this model will contribute 
to improving the tools to support ‘risk assessment’ of microbial contamination for 
long duration missions in space; 

  Will contribute to the development of a European–Russian strategy to deal with 
bio contamination in spacecraft and will contribute to the preparation of a road 
map defining the detailed scientific and technical achievements required to solve 
this issue. 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

11.6.5 

Impacts of the project for the partner organisations  

  The nature of the project calls for collaboration across different areas of expertise. 
MEDES (in France) specialises in support in space medicine and physiology 
for space exploration, while VVT (in Finland) has the experience microbiology and 
modelling. 

  The CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) calculation model for predicting the 

transfer and spread of microbes was validated in VTT's test laboratory; however, 
further validation was needed to assess the validity of the model in environments 
that reproduce the real conditions of a space craft quite closely. 

 

  Such fully closed ecosystem was provided by IBP, which counts with a testing 
room (BIOS-3) that is similar to a Space Station. More specifically the BIOS-3 
facility meets three requirements: 
It provides a pressurised volume (in size) comparable with the International 
Space Station (ISS) living module. 
It provides environmental parameters’ control (air flow rates, temperature, 
humidity, artificial illumination, etc.) within sufficiently broad limits including 
those ones optimal for human life support. 
It is suitable for humans’ long-term autonomous stay via mass exchange closure. 

 
  Additionally, the collaboration with IBMP and IBP allowed having access to 

 

additional data needed to validate and calibrate the model. It was only through 
this multidisciplinary collaboration that this analysis was made possible. 
  The project prompted the interest of ESA which in 2013 launched the call for 
proposals “Understanding and modelling of bio-contamination process for 
exobiology spacecraft and manned vehicle” to develop a further understanding of 
the model developed under BIOSMHARS and its applications. In this call, the 
documents of BIOSMHARS were part of the reference documents and were 
provided as public documents published for every person interested by the call.  

  The partners have answered to this call and are now working together and 

collaborating. This comes as a direct result of the project. 

  However, in this ESA call they have, naturally, not been able to include the 

Russian partners, hence would not be able to use the same environment to build 
into the knowledge developed under Fp7 and will have to use a different 
validation tool. 

11.6.6 

Impacts on end users and wider social effects  

The  predictive  model  develop  under  BIOSMHARS  is  quite  novel,  but  more  research  is 
needed to adapt the model into other areas. Also more investment and collaboration with 
the industry will be needed, in order to start developing a product. 

At  this  point  it  is  clear  that  the  modelling  and  knowledge  developed  under  the 
BIOSMHARS  could  influence  developments  in  different  policy  areas.  For  example,  the 
modelling  developed  could  be  applied  to  enabling  a  better  prevention  for  contamination 
within  closed  or  semi-closed  habitats  these  include  public  buildings,  hospitals,  aircrafts, 
cruise boats, schools. In fact, the scientific and technical tools to investigate airborne bio-
contamination  developed  by  BIOSMHARS  could  be  applied  in  the  future  in  several 
disciplinary areas including medicine, microbiology, chemistry, and engineering. 

The  model  developed  during  the  project  can  help  to  define  strategies  against  bio-
contamination in closed environments such as public buildings or transportation vehicles 
and  also  can  contribute  to  strategies  against  bio-contamination  related  to  biological 
terrorist attacks. In fact, MEDES and VVT have successfully submitted a proposal to FP7 
Security priority area and are in process of setting up the contract. 

The  following  table  presents  a  list  of  further  possible  applications  of  the  model,  as 
identified by the project participants. 

185 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Sector 

Possible applications of the model 

For instance  in hospitals, this model could deliver useful information in many 
different  locations  in  hospitals  and  these  would  include  i.e.  operating  rooms, 
haematology wards, where immune-compromised patients are confined. 

Health 

The model could help to improve the monitoring strategy in hospitals by better 
defining the sampling areas and the frequency of monitoring.  

The  model  could  contribute  to  fight  against  nosocomial  infections  thanks  to 
improved  designs  of  ventilation  systems  but  also  possibly  improved  hygienic 
measures as to avoid dispersion for instance during change of bed sheets. 

Architecture 

Architects start taking into account the microbial quality of habitats as early as 
possible in the design process of buildings by implementing new materials that 
are effective against moulds.  

Transport 

For  example,  in  the  air  transport  or  rail  transport,  the  model  could  also  be 
used  to  optimise  the  ventilation  system  to  limit  transmission  between 
passengers.  This  type  of  model  could  also  help  to  optimise  the  design  of 
transportation hubs, to limit the spread of infectious diseases in these areas. 

Pharmaceutical 

The model could be used to find optimal solution to bring down the microbial 
contamination risk to zero.  

11.6.7  The  added  value  of  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological 

Development and Demonstration  

The FP7 Space research programme was of key importance in facilitating the cooperation 
that was needed for BIOSMHARS. 

It  allowed  the  consortium  to  select  the  best  players  in  Europe  (not  necessarily  in 
countries  with  good  geographical  return  such  as  for  ESA)  and  to  collaborate  with  key 
partners  in  Russia  using  a  specific  experimental  facility  in  Russia  and  ensuring  an 
exchange of expertise between Russia and Europe. Despite an overall limited budget, the 
consortium  managed  to  reach  significant  results  in  a  short  time  and  to  build  a  key 
cooperation network in the field of bio-contamination in closed habitats. 

Participation  in  BIOSMHARS  project  has  helped  to  substantially  improve  international 
collaboration in space researches. 

11.6.8  Key success factors and lessons learned for the future 

Two success factors were mentioned by project participants: 

  Coordination by MEDES was effective, orientated towards solving problems. This 
was particularly important as this work was quite experimental requires a high 
level of flexibility, innovative behaviour and good will. 
In terms of administrative procedures it was very simple include the IBP and IBMP 
and no additional paperwork was needed, which facilitate setting up the 
consortium. 

 

Further  involvement  from  ESA  would  have  been  appreciated,  and  project  could  have 
gained from more access to ESA expertise, who in practice would be the main customers 
of the model developed. 

186 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

In terms of dissemination, the project and coordinator state that they would have engage 
in further dissemination activities if the budget would have allowed so. All the resources 
were exhausted in the research. 

11.6.9  Sources  

This  section  provides  a  list  of  references  that  help  to  corroborate  the  reported  impact, 
and  in  particular  the  size  and  importance  of  the  innovation  outcomes  and  the  critical 
contribution of the FP. We have extracted information from:  

1.  http://www.biosmhars.eu/home 

2.  http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/58488_en.html 

3.  BIOSMHARS  –  BIO-contamination  Specific  Modelling  in  Habitats  Related  to  Space 

Grant Agreement n° 263076, Project Final Report 

List of interviewees 

Interviewee 

MEDES-INST MEDECINE PHYSIOLOGIE SPATIALE 

Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) 

Institute  of  Biophysics  of  Siberian  Branch  of  Russian  Academy  of 
Sciences 

Role 

Coordinator 

Scientific contact 

Scientific contact 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

12.  ANNEX B: FINAL BENEFICIARY SURVEY 

About you and your projects 

1.  Please confirm the following information: 

 
 

Your name: _______________________________________ 
Your role in the organisation: ___________________________ 

2.  How many projects have you been involved in under the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme?  

3.  Please  indicate  below  the  number  of  different  partners  within  those  project(s),  the  number  of  these  that 
you have collaborated with before ‘FP7 Space Research’ and the number you have worked with since your 
first collaboration. 

  Number  of  different  partners  you  have  worked  with 

before Fp7 Space Research  

  Number  of  different  partners  you  have  worked  since 

Fp7 Space Research 

  TOTAL  number  of  different  partners  in  Fp7  Space 

Research (1+2) 

Relevance of FP7 support for Space 

4. 

In  your  opinion,  to  what  extent  do  the  FP7  Space  Research  objectives  correspond  to  the  needs  of  EU 
stakeholders? 

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where a score of 1 indicates the objective is of little or no relevance and a score 
of 5 shows you consider the programme to be of great relevance to the issue in question. 

5 
(Great 
relevance) 

4 

3 

2 

(little  or 
no 

relevance) 

Global 
leadership 
manufacturing and applications 

in 

space 

Provision  of  improved  services  to  EU 
citizens  

Commercial exploitation  

Capitalisation  on 
the  potential  of 
Europe’s  SMEs  to  drive  innovation  in 
space 

Improving EU influence in international 
space policy 

International standing of space science 
in Europe 

188 

 
 
 
 
       
       
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

5. 

In  your  opinion,  to  what  extent  do  the  FP7  Space  Research  actions  responds  to  the  needs  of  each  of 
following EU stakeholders? 

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where a score of 1 indicates the objective is of little or no relevance and a score 
of 5 shows you consider the programme to be of great relevance to the group in question.   

5 
(Great 
relevance) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

(little  or 
no 
relevanc
e) 

Upstream industry 

Space research community (including 
academia) 

Policy makers 

Downstream industry 

EU citizens 

SMEs 

Other (specify) 

Objectives met through your participation in ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme 

6.  Please  indicate  which  of  the  following  elements  where  objectives  of  your  project(s)  (Section  A).  If  you 

know the element was not an objective just leave it blank. 

Additionally, please indicate whether the objective in question has been achieved or is likely to be achieved in 
the future (Section B).  

A. 
Objective 
(Yes) 

B.  Fully 
achieved 

C. 
Somewhat 
achieved 

F.  Do 
not 
know 

D.  Not 
achieved 
and  not 
expect 
to 
be 
achieved 
in 
the 
future 

E.  Not 
achieved 
but 
expect 
to 
be 
achieved 
the 
in 
future 

To address funding gap 

access  missing, 

To 
specialist expertise 

To  develop  and  expand 
internal  knowledge  and 
research capabilities 

To advance the status of 
knowledge globally 

To 
my 
improve 
organisation  ability  and 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

capacity to conduct R&D 

To 
our 
improve 
international  visibility  / 
reputation 

To 
international 
partnerships 

strengthen 

To 
industrial links 

improve 

To 
academic links 

improve 

our 

our 

To  demonstrate  new 
applications 

To  develop  new  or 
improved tools, methods 
or techniques 

To  develop  new  or 
improved  products  and 
services 

To  develop  new  or 
improved processes 

To access new markets 

To  access  international 
supply chains 

To  access  international 
markets 

Other 
(specify) 

objective 

Other outputs 

7.  For each of the following categories, please indicate the number of outputs produced by your organisation 

as a direct result of the project(s) 

Publications in refereed journals and books 

New products or services 

Other publications 

Patent applications 

New or improved technical codes or standards 

New or improved regulations or policies 

Other (specify) 

Wider benefits and impacts 

190 

 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

8.  Please describe briefly what you consider the main impact of the project(s) to be. 

9.  Have any of the following benefits have been realised – or are expected to be realised – as a result of your 

organisation’s participation in the FP7 Space Research programme? 

No 
impact 

Low 
impact 

Medium 
impact 

High 
impact 

Do  not 
know 

Not 
appli-
cable 

Improved 
capabilities 

internal  knowledge  and 

Improved relationships and networks 

Enhance reputation and image 

Improved turnover/income 

Increased employment 

Improved productivity 

Improved profitability 

Improved reputation / brand awareness 

Improved competitiveness (national) 

Improved competitiveness (other EU) 

Improved 
international) 

competitiveness 

(other 

Increased  market  share  in  downstream 
markets 

Increased  market  share  in  upstream 
market 

Other (specify)______________ 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

10.  In  your  opinion,  what  is  the  impact  that  the  overall  FP7  Space  Research  programme  has  had  on  the 

following Community objectives: 

Please score all aspects where you have a view. 

No 
impact 

Low 
impact 

Medium 
impact 

High 
impact 

Do 
not 
know 

Not 
appli-
cable 

Increase  European  scientific  capabilities 
related to Space 

Increase 
capabilities related to Space 

European 

technological 

To  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  an 
operational GMES 

Capitalise  on  the  potential  of  Europe’  SMEs 
to drive innovation in Space 

Support  the  development  of  space-based 
applications that are more cost-effective for 
end users 

international  standing  of  EU 
Increase 
scientific  capacity  in  fields  related  to  space 
research 

Enable  international  space  cooperation  and 
collaboration 

To foster participation of the best experts in 
the  scientific  community 
independently 
from their Member State 

Other (specify)______________ 

11.  Who do you consider to be the main ‘users’ or beneficiaries of the project(s) and its/their results? 

Industry 

  Policy makers 

Scientific 
community 

  Society as a 

  Other 

whole 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

12.  To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?   

Please score all aspects where you have a view. 

Strongly 
agree 

Agree  Neutral  Disagree  Strongly 
disagree 

The  FP7  space  research  actions  have  been 
implemented in an efficient way 

The level of funding is appropriate for achieving 
the stated objectives 

The programme has been effective at engaging 
Europe’s  leading  researchers  in  the  university 
sector and the institute sector 

The programme has been effective at engaging 
Europe’s leading space technologists 

The programme has been effective at engaging 
Europe’s leading space businesses 

The programme has been effective at engaging 
Europe’s leading space SMEs 

13.  How satisfied is your organisation with the following  administrative aspects of the ‘FP7 Space Research’ 

programme? 

Very 
satisfied 

Satisfied  Neither 

Dissatisfied  Very 

satisfied 
nor 
dissatisfied 

dissatisfied 

Not 
applicable 

Marketing 
communication 
the programme 

and 
about 

Information  about  the 
programme and calls 

Clarity  /  ease  of  use  of 
the application process 

The 
contract negotiation 

timeliness 

of 

Support 
project 
to 
teams  during  project 
execution 

of 

Ease 
administrative 
requirements 
the project 

fulfilling 

during 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

14.  How satisfied is your organisation with the following implementation aspects of the ‘FP7 Space Research’ 

programme? 

Very 
satisfied 

Satisfied  Neither 

Dissatisfied  Very 

satisfied 
nor 
dissatisfied 

dissatisfied 

Not 
applicable 

The  nature  of 
financial 
available 

the 
support 

The  topics  covered  by 
the call for proposals 

Scale of the projects 

International  scope  of 
the projects 

Geographical  coverage 
(e.g.  EU  MS,  other 
international) 

Support for SMEs 

Encouragement 
gender diversity 

of 

Support for inclusion of 
non-space partners 

What would have happened in the absence of the support? 

15.  What  would  have  happened  in  the  absence  of  the  support  provided  by  the  ‘FP7  Space  Research’ 

programme? 

(Tick all that apply to the different projects you have been involved in) 

My organisation would not have gone ahead with the project(s) 

My  organisation  would  not  have  gone  ahead  with  the  project(s),  but  would  have  done 
another one instead 

My  organisation  would  have  proceeded  with  the  project(s),  using  alternative  sources  of 
funding 

My organisation would have proceeded with the project(s), but with fewer partners 

My organisation would have proceeded with the project(s), but with a reduced scope 

My organisation would have proceeded with the project(s), but with a longer timeframe 

Other (please, specify) 

None of the above 

Do not know 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

16.  Do you believe that your project(s) could have been supported by a national scheme or ESA rather than by 

FP funding? 

Yes, all of them  

Yes, some of them  

No 

(Skip logic: If response to Q0 = “Yes, all of them”, then survey will show Q0, otherwise it will show Q17) 

17.  Please indicate why at least some of your projects would not have been supported by a national scheme or 

ESA (where applicable). 

We applied for national funding but were turned down 

There  was  no  national  funding  available  in  the  same  research  area  as  the 
project(s) 

There  was  no  national  funding  available  for  the  type  of  activity  performed  in 
the project 

National  funding  sources  would  not  have  supported  vital  international 
partners 

The issue addressed by the project was a European rather than a national one 

The project was too commercially oriented for national schemed 

Other (specify) 

FP7 in comparison with other funding experiences 

Please indicate the extent to which any of the following factors render FP7 Space Research actions more or less 
effective than other conceivable European actions (e.g. Galileo, Copernicus, other themes of FP7) and national 
programmes 

Better  or 
more 
effective 

Worse 
less 
effective 

or 

Equally 
effective 

Do not know 

Overall programme budget 

Scale  of 
available to individual projects 

financial  assistance 

Focus  on  applied  research  and 
demonstration 

Geographical 
collaborations 

extent 

of 

Multilateral 
collaborations 

nature 

of 

Efficiency  and  flexibility  of  the 
support provided 

Responsiveness 
the 
programme to strategic needs of 
EU stakeholders 

of 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The role of SMEs in FP7 and H2020 Space actions 

18.  Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the 

value that SMEs can bring to FP7 / H2020 projects.   

‘SMEs add value in so far as they …’ 

Strongly 
agree 

Agree  Neutral  Disagree  Strongly 
disagree 

Are suppliers of novel technologies 

Are  suppliers  of  specialist  management  or 
technical skills 

Are  end  users  of  the  technologies  /  applications 
under development 

Would satisfy the requirements of Horizon 2020 

Challenge  established 
(change agents) 

thinking  and  norms 

May  build  on  the  technology  with 
applications / products or services 

further 

Are  key  actors  in  other  parts  of  the  international 
supply chain 

Other (please specify) 

19.  Please  indicate  the  extent  to  which  you  agree  or  disagree  with  the  following  statements  related  to  the 

potential challenges that may arise from including SMEs in your projects. 

Strongly 
agree 

Agree  Neutral  Disagree  Strongly 
disagree 

SMEs are less attracted by international projects 

FP7 / H2020 is too long term for many SMEs 

SMEs  struggle  with  the  FP’s  administrative 
requirements 

SMEs struggle with the FP’s speed of payment 

SMEs  tend  to  be  susceptible  to  short-term 
changes,  which  can  make  it  harder  to  sustain  a 
successful collaboration 

SMEs  tend  to  be  wary  about  their  ability  to  play 
an equal / appropriate role within a partnership 

SMEs  tend  to  be  wary  of  their  ability  to  protect 
their IP within an extended partnership 

SMEs  tend  to  want  to  focus  on  narrower 
application  areas  as  compared  with 
larger 
businesses or research organisations 

Other (please specify) 

Recommendations and suggestions 

20.  In your opinion is there anything that could or should have been done to help increase either: 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

The benefits of participation for your organisation: 

The exploitation of results:  

The overall impact of the ‘FP7 Space Research’ programme:  

Any project specific comment 

21.  Would you like to add any comment regarding a particular project you have been involved in? 

22.  As part of this study we are carrying out case studies of projects with significant impacts and achievements 

in one or more of the following areas. 

Do you have any suggestions or examples for any of the following areas? (Please tick all that apply) 

Development of technologies critical for EU non-dependence in space 

Projects  that  have  brought  together  partners  from  different  disciplines  or  that  have 
successfully exploited the benefits of international collaboration 

Development  of  GMES  downstream  services  that  reached  or  went  very  close  to  the 
market 

Achievement of substantive improvements in the EU’s  scientific leadership and/or of 
milestones in the exploration of space 

Projects  that  have  brought  the  TRL  of  a  product  or  solution  from  low  levels  to  pre-
operational  (or operational) level 

Provision  of  new  or  improved  services  to  citizens  and  the  society  through  space-
enabled applications 

Development  of  space-based  applications  that  are  more  cost-effective  for  end  users 
(in comparison with alternative technologies) 

Development of technologies enabling significant advances in space transportation 

Involvement of SMEs and impact of SMEs on project outcomes 

If so, please provide: 

A brief description 

Contact details or information that will help us to find the right person with whom to discuss this further 

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.  

Please press DONE to submit your answers 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

13.  ANNEX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR HIGH LEVEL POLICY AND 

PROGRAMME INTERVIEWS 

VVA, together with Technopolis Group, has been contracted by the European Commission 
(DG  Enterprise  &  Industry) to carry out a Final Evaluation of Space Research under the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme 
for  Research,  Technological  Development  and 
Demonstration (FP7).  

The  study  will  assess  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added 
value of the Space Research activities managed by DG ENTR under FP7. The  evaluation 
will  assess  impacts  achieved  against  objectives  and  priorities  for  FP7  in  general  and 
Space Research in particular, considering also how they evolved through the time. 

Entity 
Company 

/ 

Interviewee   

Date: 

Role: 

1.  Please  provide  a  short  overview  of  your  organisation  and  its  activities  in  the  Space 

field 

2.  The  general  objective  of  FP7  Space  research  was  to  “support  a  European  Space 
Programme  with  benefits  for  citizens  and  for  the  competitiveness  of  the  European 
space industry”. More specific objectives of FP7 Space Research included: 

  The development and validation of pre-operational GMES services, starting with 

 

the Fast Track Services 
Integrating Earth Observation with SatCom and SatNav technologies (esp. for 
prevention and management of emergencies) 

  Supporting the coordinated provision of data (space and in -situ) for related 

projects in FP7 

  The development of dedicated space infrastructures for GMES (under the 

management of the European Space Agency “ ESA”) 
  Support to research in space science and exploration 
  Developing new concepts in space transportation, space technologies and critical 

components (to promote the strategic objective of non-dependence)" 

a.  Was the intervention logic correct and appropriate, in the light of the underlying 
policy objectives and of societal needs and challenges? What could have been 
done better? 

b.  Considering the needs of the space industry, are you satisfied? Do you think the 

objectives were appropriate? If not what would you have changed/done 
differently? 

c.  Considering the needs of the space research community, are you satisfied? Do 

you think the objectives were appropriate? If not what would you have 
changed/done differently? 

d.  To what extent do you think the objectives were achieved? 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

3.  Considering the specific FP7 Space Research work programme activities, such as: 

  Space-based applications at the service of the European Society, with GMES 

(Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) being central to this activity; 
  Providing R&D support to the foundations of Space science, exploration, space 

transportation and space technology through synergies with initiatives of ESA or 
other European, national or regional entities. 

  Cross-cutting activities, such as SME relevant research, international cooperation 

and dissemination actions" 

a.  Were they suitable to address policy objectives and societal needs and 

challenges? If not, what was the reason? 

b.  b. Were they coherent with the above mentioned overall objectives and 
appropriate to meet the industry needs? If not, what was the reason? 
c.  c. Were they coherent with the above mentioned overall objectives and 

appropriate to meet the space research community needs? If not, what was the 
reason? 

d.  d. Are there activities or action areas that would have required more funding or 

less funding? Why? 

4.  In  your  opinion,  what  are  the  main  impacts  and  benefits  that  Fp7  Space  Research 

generated? 

5.  We would like to understand the extent to which Fp7 Space Research has contributed 
to  increase  or  maintain  the  competitiveness  of  Europe  in  the  global  Space  Market. 
Could you provide examples on how the programme has supported this objectives? 

6.  We would like to understand the extent to which Fp7 Space Research has contributed 
to  substantive  improvements  in  the  EU’s  scientific  and  technological  research 
capacity  and  leadership.  Could  you  provide  examples  on  how  the  programme  has 
supported this objectives? 

7.  Has  the  FP7  Space  Research  programme  contributed  to  support  EU  influence  on 

international space policy? Could you provide some examples? 

8.  Could you provide some examples of: 

  Space-enabled applications that are more cost-effective for end users than 

alternative technologies 

  Close to market technologies and solutions developed under space exploration 

projects 

  Solutions to protect space assets 
  Critical technologies  
  Technologies and solutions for Space Exploration  
that were developed under FP7 Space Research programme?  

9.  Do you have any contact details of people involved in this/these project(s) that could 

provide more information on latest developments?" 

10.Based on the projects identified above, would you indicate some best practices that 

should be analysed in depth to identify key success factors? 

11.Was  the  FP7  Space  Research  programme,  and  in  particular  the  specific  action 
devoted  to  SMEs,  effective  in  contributing  to  capitalise  their  potential  to  drive 

199 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

innovation in space?  If  not, why?  In particular, what have been the most important 
factors  that  encouraged  or  precluded  SMEs’  participation?  Was  the  funding 
appropriate? 

12.What is your opinion about the efficiency of the Space Research programme? Based 
on  your  overall  view  of  the  context,  do  you  think  the  volume  of  outputs/results  (to 
date) compared to the overall EU FP7 Space Research investment is appropriate? 

13.Are  there  overlaps  or  complementarities  between  the  FP7  Space  Research  under 
evaluation  and  other  EU-level  or  Member  State  level  actions  in  the  relevant  areas 
(including ESA activities)? Should this area of overlap be improved? If so, how? 

14.How could be the programme be further improved? What lessons can be learned to 
further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Space Research in Horizon 2020? 

200 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

14.  ANNEX D: GENERAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CASE STUDIES 

INTERVIEWS 

14.1.1  Core questions 

1.  Please describe your organisation [principal business focus, employment, turnover, 
research  and  innovation  activities  in  more  general  terms  –  how  much  is  spent  of 
R&D, what proportion of annual income is related to innovations launched, how often 
it  collaborates  on  innovation  work  and  with  whom,  how  many  times  it  has 
participated in FP7] 

2.  Please  provide  a  short  overview  of  the  activities  supported  by  the  FP7  project 
[insert name of the project which has been selected for the case study], and more in 
general  about  the  R&D  efforts  of  your  organisation  [probe  for:  whether  the 
organisation  has  an  innovation  strategy,  an  executive  responsible  for  innovation,  a 
dedicated  RDI  team,  how  much  it  might  spend  on  RDI  each  year  typically,  what 
proportion  of  its  annual  income  relates  to  innovations  launched  in  the  last  three 
years,  how  frequently  it  collaborates  with  others  in  its  innovation  work,  whether  it 
has participated or bid to the FP before, etc.]. 

3.  What are the results of the project you have participated in? If the project has not 
finished  yet,  what  are  the  intermediate  results  and  what  are  the  final  expected 
outcomes  [e.g.  new  knowledge,  tools,  demonstrators,  etc.]?  Are  there  any 
documents that we could refer to in order to find more detailed information? 

4.  Is your organisation or any project partner active on further development work or 
investments  as  follow-up  to  the  project?  [investigate  whether  commercialisation  / 
exploitation  activities  are  being  undertaken]  If  yes,  what  are  the  key  upcoming 
milestones? If no, why?  

5.  Based  on  your  experience  and  overall  views,  what  are  the  concrete  impacts  your 
project and its outcomes have generated so far for  your organisation and the other 
ones  involved?  [probe  for  behavioural  effects,  process  innovations,  product  or 
service innovations and the resulting commercial benefits] 

6.  Would  you  be  able  to  indicate  any  quantifiable  impacts?  [e.g.  increase  in 
revenues,  market  shares,  increased  annual  RDI  expenditure,  cost  savings,  increase 
in employment, etc.] 

7.  On a more general level, did the project enable (or will it allow) to achieve impacts 
for the industry, the research community, the society or the political standing of the 
EU?    What  are  the  stakeholders  groups  affected,  and  to  what  extent?  [investigate 
whether it is possible to quantify any of these impacts] 

8.  Based  also  on  the  points  above,  how  will  the  project  results  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  specific  objectives  set  up  for  the  FP7  Space  Research,  such  as: 
(Please  note  that  a  selection  of  the  relevant  objectives  will  be  performed  for  each 
case study questionnaire 

9.  How  important  was  the  funding  provided  by  FP7  to  the  achievement  of  project 
objectives and eventually wider impacts? Do you think it would have been possible to 
secure funding for your project through a different source? If so, which one?  [probe 
for ESA, Member States, …] 

14.1.2  Additional questions 

10.Focusing on the role of SMEs in the project, have you cooperated with (other) SMEs 
during your project? What have been the most important factors that encouraged or 

201 

 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

precluded their participation? If so, how do you rate this cooperation? Based on your 
experience,  what  are  the  most  common  barriers  to  participation  of  SMEs  in  FP7 
projects? 

11.How  can  the  programme  be  further  improved?  What  lessons  can  be  learned  to 
further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Space Research in Horizon 2020? 

202 

 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

15.  ANNEX E: CROSS-REFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING BLOCKS AND THE 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS FROM THE TOR 

This  report  provides  the  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions  based  on  two  different 
categorizations: 

  The first is the one suggested by DG RTD and is based on five “building blocks”: 
Rationale (why), Implementation (how), Direct and Wider achievements (what) 
and European Added Value; 

  The second is based on 13 evaluation questions, as defined in the Terms of 
Reference. The questions are grouped by families of evaluation criteria, (i.e. 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, EU added value and coherence and 
complementarity). 

The  cross-reference  between  building  blocks  and  evaluation  questions  is  detailed  in  the 
table below. 

Evaluation Question in the ToR 

Evidence  Building  Block 
in FR 

Evidence Building 
Block 1: Rationale 
(“why”) 

Relevance  

Coherence and complementarity 

Evidence Building 
Block 2: 
Implementation 
(“how”) 

Efficiency  

Do  the  objectives  of  FP7  Space  research 
actions  correspond  to  the  needs  of  EU 
stakeholders  and  were  they  adequately 
designed  to  support  the  competitiveness 
of the European space industry? 

To  what  extent  did  the  objectives  reflect 
(was  there  a  clear  logic)  between  the 
levels  FP,  Specific  Programme,  work 
programme?    Are  they  aligned  with  EU 
2020 objectives? 

Is  there  an  overall  coherence  of  EU space 
initiatives in 2007-2013? 

Are  there  overlaps/  complementarities 
between  the  activities  evaluated  and  any 
other  Community  or  Member  State  action 
in  the  relevant  areas  (including  ESA 
activities)? 

FP7  Space 

actions 
Were 
implemented  in  an  efficient way?  Was  the 
level  of  funding  appropriate  for  achieving 
the stated objectives? 

research 

Did  the  research  activity  attract  the  EU's 
best  researchers  or 
leading  research 
organisations?  Did  the  instruments  reach 
the  appropriate  communities?  What  was 
the  take-up for different  types  of  actors  – 
SME, universities, firms etc.?   

Were  there  gaps  or  uneven  distribution  in 
terms of e.g. thematic areas, gender, and 
geographical coverage? 

What  aspects  of  FP7  Space  research  are 
the most efficient or inefficient? 

203 

 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

Evidence  Building  Block 
in FR 

Evaluation Question in the ToR 

Effectiveness  

Effectiveness  

Are  there  any  specific  factors  that  render 
FP7 Space  research  more  or  less  effective 
than other actions? 

To  what  extent  did  FP7  Space  research 
actions meet their objectives?   

To  what  extent  did  FP7  Space  research 
contribute to the overarching objectives of 
the EU Space policy? 

What  were  the  impacts  on  the  EU's 
research 
scientific  and 
capacity and leadership? 

technological 

EU added value 

What  is  the  added  value  of  FP7  Space 
research action? 

Evidence Building 
Block 3: 
Achievements 
(“what”) – direct 
achievements 
(“outputs”) 

Evidence Building 
Block 4: 
Achievements 
(“what”) – wider 
achievements 
(“results” and 
“impacts”) 
Evidence Building 
Block 5: European 
Added Value 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
Final Evaluation of Space Research under FP7 – Final Report

205 

 
 
 
 
[
N
B
-
0
1
-
1
4
-
0
0
5
-
E
N
-
N
]