COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions Ex-post Evaluation on the European earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011 to 2013)
Date: 2016-08-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, data collection, environmental monitoring, international cooperation, observation, public safety, satellite communications, space research, space technology

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.8.2016  SWD(2016) 262 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions Ex-post Evaluation on the European earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011 to 2013) {COM(2016) 492 final}  
 
 
Contents 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ......................................................................................................................... 7 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 10 

METHOD ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 

RESULTS  ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................ 12 

RELEVANCE .................................................................................................................................................. 12 

EFFECTIVENESS .......................................................................................................................................... 13 

EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 14 

COHERENCE ................................................................................................................................................. 15 

UTILITY .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 

EU ADDED VALUE ....................................................................................................................................... 17 

SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................................................................................................... 17 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 

ANNEXES……………………………………………………………………………………………………… .21 

2 

 
 
  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

This document is based on the final evaluation of three related elements that are however different in nature: the 
Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  GMES  Initial  Operations  (GMES  GIO)  programme  (2011-
2013),  the  GMES  Preparatory  Actions  (PAs)  2008-2010,  and  the  FP7-funded  elements  of  the  GMES  Space 
Component  (GSC)  2007-2013  The  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  initiative  has 
developed  over  two  decades  in  response  to  a  growing  need  from  decision  makers  in  Europe  for  access  to 
accurate, timely and reliable data and information services relating to environment, climate change and security 
issues. From 1998 to 2013, GMES was co-funded by the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA).  Initially, 
this  took  the  form  of  limited  support  through  the  6th  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Development 
(FP6) and ESA’s Member States, focusing mostly on services and applications.  However, funding was scaled up 
significantly on the ESA side, from 2005 and on the EU side, from 2007 with the Framework Programme for 
Research  and  Technological  Development  (FP7).To  prepare  the  ground  for  operational  services,  a  series  of 
Preparatory  Actions  (PAs)  for  GMES  were  also  launched  in  the  years  2008  to  2010,  in  particular  aiming  at 
demonstrating  the  potential  benefits  and  fostering  the  user  uptake  for  selected  GMES  services.  In  2011  the 
GMES GIO regulation was launched with a specific albeit limited budget. 

The budget for  the  three  elements  were  respectively: for  GMES  GIO: €107m; for GMES PAs: €10m; and  for 
FP7 co-financed GMES space component: €715m.  

The  evaluation  had  two  overarching  objectives,  which  were:  (i)  to  evaluate  the  relevance,  effectiveness, 
coherence, efficiency, sustainability and European added value of the three GMES-related elements and (ii) to 
outline their overall societal value, in terms of the balance between the investments made in space infrastructures 
and  services,  and  the  value  of  data  gathered  for  the  selected  services.  The  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  a 
contractor under a specific contract under the Commission's framework contract for evaluation tasks, adopting a 
mixed  methodology  including  desk  research,  stakeholder  interview  and  a  targeted  consultation.  The  data 
collection included a desk-based review of existing documents (e.g. EU regulations, interim evaluations, GMES 
work  programmes,  administrative  data,  usage  statistics),  an  online  questionnaire  directed  to  all  categories  of 
stakeholders,  a  small  industry  survey  directed  specifically  to  the  contractors  that  ‘built’  the  GMES  space 
component  and  a  programme  of  targeted,  semi-structured  interviews  with  relevant  individuals  among  key 
stakeholder groups. More than 400 named individuals were approached for an interview or a questionnaire and 
170  were  consulted  during  the  course  of  the  study.  The  interview  and  the  consultation  produced  rather  small 
number  of  responses,  reflecting  the  particular  nature  of  GMES  and  the  small  population  of  people  and 
organisations  with  knowledge  of  the  activities.  (Only  40  representatives  from  industry,  SMEs  and  service 
providers responded to survey and interview but the space sector is composed of few high specialised industries 
and the respondents target had been set at 65). 

The independent evaluation study concluded that five years after the publication of the GIO regulation (2010), 
each  of  the  six  services  initially  foreseen  (emergency  management,  land,  atmosphere,  marine  environment, 
security and climate change) remains important to the information needs of Europe’s policy makers and public 
services.    Indeed,  concerns  around  climate  change  have  escalated  further  and  the  issues  of  civil  security  and 
humanitarian crises have emerged as some of the most pressing challenges of our era, making earth observation 
needs even more crucial for the EU.  

GIO,  PAs  and the  GSC funded  through  FP7  were broadly effective  in  achieving  their  stated  objectives,  albeit 
they were perhaps the pragmatic ( because they were the only instruments available) rather than the ideal choice 
of instruments (that would have required a huge, dedicated and well-funded programme) for the development of 
such a complex and wide-ranging set of global information services and its related space infrastructure (intended 
as  the  panoply  of  elements  necessary  to  build,  launch  and  maintain  in  operation  the  satellites,  the  ground 
structures  for  support  and  for  data  processing).  An  RTD  Framework  programme  is  not  normally  designed  to 
produce  the  type  of  large-scale  integrated  system  needed  by  GIO  but  the  attempt  was  successful,  although    it 
created certain inefficiencies linked to the "research project" procedures to be followed as for the contracting of 
work or  the reporting on progress made. Other inefficiencies of the Programme include the limited support for 
uptake  and  downstream  applications  or  the  lack  of  provision  of  in-situ  data    and  its  integration  with  other 
existing  space-derived  data  from  contributing  missions,.  However  the  limited  budget  did  not  allow  for  much 
choice  and there was no practicable alternative, since no other programme could have sustained the costs for the 

3 

 
 
GIO  implementation.  Most  programme  participants,  considered  the  programme  results  to  be  produced  at 
reasonable costs, but a thorough quantitative analysis of the efficiency has not been possible due to the lack of 
metrics  or  targets  for  indicators  associated  with  the  operational  objectives,  therefore  there  was  no  baseline 
against which quantify and test the progress made by the programme. It should also be noted that there are no 
homogeneous criteria to compare services' performance, due to the totally different nature of each of them. For 
the space infrastructure, thanks to the use of fixed price contracts, the development of Sentinel satellites and their 
launch costed less than previous Earth Observation initiatives. The GIO programme had a positive influence on 
the phase-up of the present Copernicus Programme. On one hand, it established GMES as a programme with its 
own  architecture  and  interlinked  components,  pre-announcing  the  development  of  the  complex  structure  of 
Copernicus.  On  the  other  hand,  with  limited  financing  the  programme  delivered  on  each  of  its  specific 
objectives1  and  successfully  ensured:    the  operational  provision  of  two  of  the  core  services  (Emergency 
management (EMS) and Land monitoring (LMS)), the coordination of access to other space and in situ data and 
the  contribution  to  developing,  building,  launching  and  operating  the  "Sentinels"  satellites.  The  limited  funds, 
however, inevitably slowed the rate of implementation of the remaining four core services, of user uptake and of 
the development of a downstream sector. It should be noted that the first Sentinel's data were only available after 
the first launch, in April 2014. 

The programme had positive effects on intra-EU and international cooperation, for example contributing to the 
work of the international group on earth observation (GEO) where there had originally been competitive tensions 
and to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. It enabled the creation of a permanent European Earth 
monitoring system, in line with the Commission’s Communication on Europe 2020, which saw GMES as a key 
component of European space policy and a means by which to help address key global challenges as it has been 
demonstrated  by  the  contribution  of  the  Global  Land  service  to  the  EU  Development  efforts  and    by  the 
Emergency management Service support to the EU's emergency response and management at the international 
level. The series of data and information services created by the programme have the potential to deliver wider 
social and economic benefits in the future.  

The GMES Space Component produced substantial direct benefits for Europe’s space industry, with more than 
230 suppliers benefitting from circa €530M in contracts, including 48 high specialized small and medium size 
enterprises.  According to the survey held for the evaluation, all contractors considered the contractual work had 
improved  their  technological  capabilities  ‘to  a  large  extent,’  and  all  respondents  reported  a  positive  benefit  in 
terms of their competitiveness.  

There are now 600 registered service users (2015), which have realised both process (productivity) and product 
benefits,  as  a  result  of  using  GMES/Copernicus  services  and  data,  estimated  in  annual  savings  ranging  from 
€10,000 to €500,000 a year from productivity gains and reduced external purchases. 

The GIO programme has worked as good example of EU policy, judging, for example, by the growing use of its 
Land and Emergency services by policy makers and public agencies in the agriculture, environment and climate 
change  areas,  to  get  information  on  flooding,  earthquakes,  fires  and  other  environmental  hazards.  By  using 
generic industrial statistics to estimate the spill over effects for the investments, while keeping the estimates in 
the lower bound, the total societal benefits produced by the GMES infrastructure reach up to €3 billion. Other 
socio-economic benefits are difficult to calculate, as for instance the extent to which the GMES initial operations 
had enabled savings to be made through improved early warnings or better emergency response. However, given 
the  scale  of  the  economic  disruption,  even  a  1%  contribution  across  all  types  of  emergencies,  would  produce 
annual  savings  of  tens  of  millions,  which  is  substantially  more  than  the  annual  cost  of  running  the  whole 
Emergency Service (4-5 million/year).  

The GMES Space Component fulfilled its objectives and underpinned the launch of Copernicus, so in that sense 
the programme must be considered to have been ‘useful.’  However, the full service is still being developed and 
as such the issue of wider utility is only starting now.  The majority of consulted stakeholders view this whole 
domain as a work-in-progress, so while most people are reasonably satisfied with the achievements of the GMES 
initiatives, there are numerous points where  more needs to be done. Those challenges  must fall to Copernicus 
now  and,  they  comprise:  (i)  a  very  much  sharper  focus  on  (and  understanding  of)  user  needs,  (ii)  greater 
certainty  around  the  longer-term  plans  /  funding  for  the  service  and  (iii)  the  development  of  downstream 
services. 

1 The objectives of GMES GIO were stated in the Annex to the REGULATION (EU) No 911/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2010 on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) 
and its initial operations (2011 to 2013) 

4 

 
 
                                                            
The  required  outputs  were  delivered  by  the  programme  and  the  preparatory  actions  at  reasonable  and 
proportionate  costs,  in  the  opinion  of  the  industry  of  the  sector  and  the  majority  of  people  interviewed 
acknowledged  that  the  programme  had  been  properly  managed  although  several  contributors  argued  that  the 
balance of priorities had been wrong (e.g. too much of the total investment had gone into the space component 
and  insufficient  attention  had  been  paid  to  the  development  of  services.  The  Land  and  Emergency  Services 
however  were  both  launched  as  planned  and  have  run  continuously  since,  providing  all  of  the  anticipated 
products and services. The space component was executed according to plan, keeping to time and budget, and 
was cost-effective, when judged against the cost of other Earth observation programmes.  The GIO programme, 
including  the  European  Space  Agency  funds,  outside  the  scope  of  this  evaluation,  cost  around  €2.3  billion  in 
total in 2002 prices, to develop the first seven satellites and to launch three of them.  In real terms, this is lower 
than the equivalent cost to develop, launch and operate the Envisat satellite, which had fewer instruments and 
lower levels of functionality. 

The  different  elements  (FP7,  PAs  and  GIO)  were  consistent  in  how  they  attempted  to  reach  their  stated 
objectives inasmuch as the PAs usefully helped to define the service components of three of the six core services 
and the GIO programme ensured the continuation and expansion of those pre-operational services and the further 
development  of  the  remaining  ones.    The  GIO  programme  also  built  on  the  work  of  the  FP7  funded  GMES 
Space  Component  and  in  particular  the  coordinated  provision  of  observation  data  both  from  existing  space 
infrastructure  (Contributing  Missions)  and  from  in  situ  observing  systems.    In  simple  terms,  GIO  built  on  the 
outputs  of  the  FP7-funded  space  element  and  prepared  for  the  operational  phase.  GIO  would  not  have  been 
successful without the FP7 space component, and Copernicus would not be working so well without GIO. The 
GIO programme also complemented Member States operations, with very few examples of substantive overlaps 
in  services;  however,  these  can  also  be  considered  complementary,  with  different  instruments  and  levels  of 
resolution (e.g. Italy’s COSMO-SkyMed programme).  

The three elements evaluated provide nevertheless high levels of European Added Value.  No single EU country 
could have created a similar system on its own, partly for reasons of cost, but also for reasons of willingness to 
invest.    National  programmes  are  naturally  very  much  more  limited  in  their  scope  and  only  fulfil  a  limited 
number  of  the  GMES  functions  and  typically  at  lower  levels  of  functionality.    GMES  offers  higher  levels  of 
assured  continuity  of  service,  as  compared  with  anything  available  nationally  (even  for  the  US):  a  full-scale, 
permanent screen of sensors. GMES also provides substantial added value through the provision of harmonised 
data and technology applied across EU Member States for cross-border issues and in aggregating the harmonised 
data reported by Member States up to EU scale in a harmonised manner.  There is real added value for a wide set 
of European policies  in  accessing a homogeneous  database  and derived products for  the  whole of  the  EU and 
beyond.  For  the  Earth  Observation  industry,  the  added  value  was  financial:  the  creation  of  a  major  space 
infrastructure  programme  that  may  not  have  been  launched  otherwise  procured  leading-edge  technologies  and 
helped ensure Europe’s space industry remains globally competitive. 

Turning to the question of the sustainability of the changes brought about by the GIO programme, the evaluation 
suggests there will be a legacy in terms of better policy choices or enhanced technological capabilities. For the 
manufacturers  and  technical  services  companies  that  have  built  the  infrastructure  and  delivered  much  of  the 
services component, the contracts will have quite a lasting effect, conferring a competitive advantage that people 
anticipate to last for five years or more.  The opportunities for value-added resellers and downstream businesses 
have yet to be crystallised in any serious scale although much is being done to promote the sector. 

The lessons learned suggest further attention to the user orientation of the core services, with explicit strategies 
driven by the information and functional needs of key market segments. It will be necessary to continue to invest 
in  user  uptake,  within  both  institutional  and  private  sector  client  groups.  Interaction  with  Member  States  and 
regional  authorities  within  the  governance structures (and  consultative processes) of  the  core  services  must be 
increased. Finally, the evaluation suggests to continue to support innovation in both the core services and their 
platforms, looking to make greater use of data linking (and big data more generally) and to increase substantially 
the  support  available  to  develop  downstream  applications,  focusing  in  particular  on  incentives  for  smaller 
businesses. 

5 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

In  compliance  with  the  Article  14  of  the  Regulation  No  911/2010  the  Commission  had  to  conduct  an  ex-post 
evaluation  of  GMES  Initial  operations  programme  by  31  December  2015  and  present  its  results  in  a 
Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee  of  the  Regions.  As  far  as  the  GMES  Preparatory  Actions  are  concerned,  Article  21  of  the 
Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation2, requires interim and/or ex-post evaluation of all programmes 
and activities, including pilot projects and preparatory actions, exceeding €5 million (which is the case for the 
Preparatory  Actions).  An  interim  evaluation  for  GMES  and  its  initial  operations  as  well  as  the  GMES 
preparatory  actions  took  place  in  2012,  as  required  by  Regulation  No.  911/2010.  Last,  but  not  least,  for 
consistency  reasons  the  final  evaluation  of  the  GIO  regulation  and  the  GMES  Preparatory  Actions  follow  an 
integrated approach, and include the evaluation of FP7 space actions financing the construction and launch of the 
GMES space component (Sentinels and data access activities).  

Beyond  the  regulatory  reporting  obligations,  it  is  significant  to  verify  the  solidity  of  an  approach  that  has 
transformed, in very few years' time, a research and  development-oriented programme into a full industry and 
societal  endeavour,  without  losing  its  scientific  character  or  its  competitiveness  edge  on  a  global  scale. 
Furthermore,  the  evaluation  helps  to  put  in  perspective  the  past  and  future  achievements  of  the  Copernicus 
programme  and  the  legislative  initiative  practices  of  the  Commission.  GIO  is,  in  fact,  one  example  of  the 
successful  efforts  sustained  by  the  European  Union  to  integrate  different  policies  and  respond  to  big  societal 
challenges, while respecting the political objectives of growth and modernization.  

To  summarize:  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  is  the  GMES  Initial  Operations  programme  (GIO)  2011-2013;  the 
GMES  Preparatory  Actions  (PAs)  2008-2010,  and  the  GMES  space  component  funded  through  the  FP7, 
covering the 2007-2013 period. The focus is on the elements specifically funded by the EC through these three 
components  (GMES  GIO:  €107m;  GMES  PAs:  €10m;  and  FP7  co-financing  of  the  GMES  space  component: 
€715m). Each of the elements were examined as part of an integrated evaluation, all of them were relevant to 
evaluating  the  effectiveness  of  GIO  overall,  and  its  impact  on  the  phase-up  of  the  Copernicus  Programme, 
launched  in  2014.The  focus,  however,  is  on  the  two  fast-track  services  of  GIO,  Land  and  Emergency 
Management  services,  and has  only  considered the other four  services (e.g.  marine,  security,  etc.)  as  part of  a 
contextual analysis. It should be noted that the other services were part of the ex-post FP7 space evaluation and 
that all elements have been part of the Commission's report on the FP7 ex-post evaluation. 

For the GIO programme, it was important to assess whether its objectives were still relevant; how the adopted 
measures contributed to reach said objectives and their degree of effectiveness and efficiency; the performance 
of  the  organisational  structure  and  the  scope  of  the  services  deployed;  the  degree  and  the  quality  of  the 
involvement  of  the  relevant  European  Agencies,  and,  finally,  the  impact  of  data  and  policy  on  stakeholders, 
downstream users and investments. The evaluation exercise aimed at analysing, on one side, the GIO programme 
implementation, mainly the work programmes, the budget execution, delegation mechanisms (delegations to the 
European Environment Agency (EEA) and to the European Space Agency (ESA)), and procurement procedures 
(publications,  evaluations,  and  awarding).  On  the  other  side,  GMES  policies  and  governance,  from  data  and 
information  policy  to  security  policy,  GMES  Committees  and  Security  Board,  and  user  consultations  (User 
Forum) have also been assessed. As regards to the Preparatory Actions it was important to verify the extent to 
which stated goals have been achieved (or were likely to be achieved), i.e. demonstrate the potential benefits and 
foster the user uptake for selected GMES services. Their contribution to the facilitation of the GMES regulatory 
work  is  in  the  background  of  the  evaluation.  Finally,  for  the  FP7  actions  dedicated  to  the  development  of  the 
GMES space component, the final evaluation only assessed the space infrastructure and data access contribution 
to the build-up phase of GMES. 
The  evaluation  had  two  overarching  objectives,  which  were:  (i)  to  evaluate  the  relevance,  effectiveness, 
coherence, efficiency, sustainability and European added value (EAV) of the GMES related elements  (the PAs, 
GIO  and  FP7  space  component);  and  (ii)  to  outline  the  overall  societal  value  of  the  three  components  of  the 
GMES Programme, in terms of the balance between the investments made in space infrastructures and services, 
and  the  value  of  data  gathered  for  the  selected  services.  A  log  frame,  setting  out  the  general  and  specific 
objectives for the GMES programme was set up and is reported in the Annex.   

2 Regulation No. 1605/2002   

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

The  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  initiative  was  launched  in  1998  with  the 
declaration known as the "Baveno manifesto". It was, however, only in 2001 that the Council Resolution 2001/C 
350/02 (13.11.2001), following the Gothenburg summit of June, adopted the strategic decision to develop before 
2008 an independent observation capacity to deliver services in both the environmental and the security fields. 
GMES was designed on  the assumption  that the  EU  could play  a  more  effective  role  than  individual Member 
States in international cooperation through bilateral collaborations with other spacefaring nations or participation 
in global efforts in the field of Earth Observation (e.g. the Group on Earth Observations). Given Europe's long 
heritage in Earth observation, GMES was built on partnerships between the Union, the Member States and the 
European Space Agency (ESA) with the further participation of other entities like EUMETSAT (the European 
Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) and the European environment agency (EEA). 

In 2004, the EC Communication ‘GMES: Establishing a GMES capacity by 2008’3 introduced an Action Plan to 
address  the  Gothenburg  challenge  and  to  establish  a  working  GMES  capacity  by  2008.  A  Framework 
Agreement4 was also signed between the EC and ESA, providing the basis for future cooperation on GMES. In 
2005, “GMES: From Concept to Reality”5 set out a strategy for delivering GMES, and established priorities for 
rolling-out services in 2008.  Initial areas of focus (Fast Track Services) included land and marine monitoring 
and  emergency  response  services,  while  later  priorities  (Pilot  Services)  were  expected  to  include  atmosphere, 
security and climate change.  The Communication also envisaged that GMES would be allocated a substantial 
majority of the funding available for Space under FP7.  A GMES Bureau was also established, with the primary 
objective  of  delivering  the  priority  services  by  2008,  as  well  as  addressing  issues  relating  to  the  GMES 
governance structure and long-term financial sustainability. 

From 1998 to 2013, GMES was co-funded by the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA).  Initially, this took 
the form of limited support through the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP6) and 
ESA’s  Member  States,  focusing  mostly  on  services  and  applications.    However,  funding  was  scaled  up 
significantly on the ESA side, from 2005 with the GMES Space Component Declaration at the ESA Ministerial 
meeting,  and  on  the  EU  side,  from  2007  with  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological 
Development (FP7).   

The 2005 Communication6 expected the various GMES services to be ultimately paid for by users, but noted that 
the creation of this new infrastructure would be hugely costly and would take many years to develop and that, as 
such, it would need substantial public investment to be built and for pilot services to be developed. 

The  Union  co-funded,  through  FP7,  the  development  of  the  GMES  Space  Component  for  an  amount  of  €715 
million, which included the development of four dedicated missions known as the Sentinels, as well as access to 
data  produced  by  other  missions  known  as  "contributing  missions".  The  Union  contribution  was  implemented 
through ESA on the basis of a delegation agreement. In addition, the Union fully funded the development of the 
GMES  core  services.  Additionally,  both  ESA  and  the  Union  continued  supporting  the  development  of 
downstream  services  and  applications.    In  parallel,  the  Union  focused  on  establishing  a  programme  with  a 
dedicated budget line.  

GMES FP7-funded Space Component (GSC) (as initially foreseen) 

Delegation to ESA for the development of GMES space infrastructure (Sentinels) 
Space data access grant for procuring data from the Contributing Missions 
Total 

Budget (€m) 
667 
 48 
715 

3 COM(2004) 065 
4 Council Decision on the signing of the Framework Agreement between the European Community and the European Space 
Agency (12858/03 RECH 152 7 October 2003) 
5 COM(2005) 565 
6Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Global Monitoring for Environment and 
Security (GMES): From Concept to Reality, COM(2005) 565 final. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
To prepare the ground, Preparatory Actions for GMES were implemented in the years 2008 to 2010, in particular 
aiming  at  demonstrating  the potential  benefits  and fostering  the user  uptake  for  selected GMES  services.  Five 
specific activities for a total of approximately €10 million were launched. All contracts had 36 months duration 
and addressed the areas of emergency management (2008), reference data for Europe, reference data for the rest 
of World (2009), sea ice information and air quality information (2010).  

GMES Preparatory Action (PA) funding (as initially foreseen) 

Launch 
2008 

PA 
LinkER 

Links with GMES 

Emergency Management 
Uptake  of 
through the SAFER project (FP7) 

the  data  products  produced 

Funding (€m) 
2.823 

2009 

2009 

2010 

Reference  Data  Access 
(Lot 1) 
Reference  Data  Access 
(Lot 2) 
The ICEMAR project 

2010 

The ObsAIRve project 

Land Monitoring 
Reference data – Europe 
Land Monitoring 
Reference data – Rest of world 
Take-up of services by users 
Sea Ice Monitoring 
Take-up of services by users 
Air quality Monitoring 

Total 

2.08 

0.25 

2.095 

1.975 

9.2 

The  general  objective  of  the  PAs  was:    to  facilitate  the  preparation  and  support  the  development  of  pre-
operational GMES services; demonstrate the potential benefits and foster user-uptake of services, and develop 
user  interfaces.    Some  of  the  projects  supported  were  also  intended  to  demonstrate  the  potential  of  GMES  to 
spearhead  the  development  of  downstream  services  and  applications  (e.g.  ICEMAR  and  ObsAIRve).    The 
specific  objectives  of  the  individual  PAs  were  set  out  in  the  annual  calls  for  tenders.    For  example,  the  2008 
Emergency Response PA was intended to support the development of user interfaces in the emergency response 
field.  The goals of the resulting LinkER project were to support the development of: (i) a user interface in the 
field of emergency response; and, (ii) the operational use of GMES EMS products across all EU countries in the 
Civil Protection Mechanism and in DGs RELEX and ECHO at the European Commission. 

The  programme  developed  into  a  Union-led  flagship  of  European  space  policy  with  the  Regulation  (EU)  No 
911/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  September  2010  on  the  European  Earth 
monitoring Programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-2013) that highlighted the transformation from 
an  initial  phase  of  scientific  demonstration  projects  to  a  fully-fledged  Union  programme.  While  the  funding 
foreseen under this Regulation was very limited, its benefits would probably extend to a wide range of Union 
policies.  GMES  was  also  one  of  the  programmes  to  be  delivered  under  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  and  was  included  in  the  industrial  policy  initiative  of  Europe  2020.  The 
regulation  established  a  Union  programme  based  on  three  components:  space,  services  (six  areas:  emergency 
response, land monitoring, marine monitoring, atmosphere, security and climate change) and in situ and entered 
into force in November 2010, with a budget of €107 million.  

GIO overall budget, 2011-13 (as initially foreseen) 

Emergency management service 
Land Monitoring Service 
User uptake 
Space component 
Total 

Budget (€m) 
12 
26 
5 
64 
107 

The  development  of  GMES-dedicated  satellites  (the  Sentinels)  continued,  while  many  of  the  pre-operational 
services projects continued to be financed with research funds.  The role of the Commission was to ensure the 
coordination of the GMES programme with activities at national, Union and international levels and to manage 
the Union funding. Furthermore, as GMES was a user-driven programme, the Commission implemented actions 
aimed  at  ensuring  that  first  service  specifications  matched  the  known  user  needs.  Technical  coordination  and 
implementation of the GMES space component was delegated to ESA, relying on the European Organisation for 
the  Exploitation  of  Meteorological  Satellites  (EUMETSAT)  where  necessary.  The  Commission  entrusted  the 
management of the Land Service to the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen while the Joint 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Research Centre (JRC) was appointed as the technical coordinator for the Emergency Management Service and 
the  Land  Service.  GMES  also  provided  useful  data  to  environmental  networks  and  public  authorities,  for 
instance  through  the  Shared  Environmental  Information  System  (SEIS)  Initiative  and  the  Infrastructure  for 
Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Community  (INSPIRE).  On  3  April  2014,  the  GMES  Regulation  was 
repealed by the new Regulation 377/2014 establishing the fully operational Copernicus Programme. The actions 
foreseen  in  the  framework  of  the  Initial  Operations  programme  are  still  continuing,  in  particular  to  the  Land 
Service and Emergency Management Service.  

GMES was aimed at delivering a better understanding of how and in what way our planet is changing, and how 
this  might  influence  our  daily  lives,  through  an  uninterrupted  provision  of  accurate  and  reliable  data  and 
information  on  environmental  issues,  climate  change  and  security  matters  to  decision  makers  in  the  EU.  This 
information  is  needed  by  public  authorities  in  the  Member  States  and  regions  who  are  in  charge  of  policy 
conception and implementation. The Commission also needs this information for evidence-based policy-making 
and monitoring. GMES should also have contributed to economic stability and growth by boosting commercial 
applications  in  many  different  sectors  through  full  and  open  access  to  Earth  observation  data  and  information 
services. GMES operational objectives were listed in the Annex to the GMES Regulation and included:  

o 

emergency services to respond to various disasters and hazards, deliberate or accidental, man-made or 
not, including climate change, and humanitarian disasters;  
land monitoring to the benefit of European, national, regional and international authorities;  

o 
o  marine monitoring providing information on the state of physical ocean and marine ecosystems for the 

o 

global ocean and the European regional areas;  
atmosphere services, monitoring of air quality on a European scale and of the chemical composition of 
the atmosphere on a global scale;  
security services like border control, maritime surveillance and support to EU external action;  

o 
o  monitoring climate change and providing climate analysis and projections;  

implementation of technical interfaces and development of the downstream sector;  

o 
o  data access from other types of observation infrastructures;  
o 
o 

coordination of in situ data collection;  
ensuring the operations and development of the space component.  

The Copernicus Programme is not within the scope of this ex post evaluation; however, its creation is perhaps 
the  most  powerful  single  indication  of  the  success  of  the  GMES  elements  under  review,  whose  principal 
objective  was  to  deliver  a  comprehensive  and  permanent  earth  monitoring  programme.    In  April  2014,  the 
GMES Regulation was repealed by a new Regulation (377/2014) establishing the fully operational Copernicus 
Programme,  essentially  completing  the  institutionalisation  and  renaming  of  GMES.7    Copernicus  has  taken 
forward the six core services developed by the GMES programmes under review (i.e. Land Monitoring; Marine 
Monitoring;  Atmosphere  Monitoring;  Emergency  Management;  Security;  Climate  Change)  and  confirmed 
outsourcing arrangements in line with the delivery models developed by GMES.8 

7 http://www.copernicus.eu/ 
8 The Commission entrusted the management of the Land Service to the EEA, while the JRC was appointed as the technical 
coordinator for the Emergency Management Service and the Land Service.  Other services are being implemented through 
delegation agreements with Mercator Océan, ECMWF, FRONTEX and EMSA.  These services have reached different 
degrees of maturity.   

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

The evaluation follows 7 evaluation criteria which relate to the overall objectives: 

Criteria 
Relevance 

Question 
To  what  extent  do  the  initial  objectives  of  the  GIO  Programme  (still)  correspond  to 
current needs / issues? 

Effectiveness  How  effective  were  the  mechanisms  and  means  to  achieve  each  of  the  stated 
objectives? To what extent has GIO contributed to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  objectives,  and  to  the  implementation  of  other 
European  policies  (i.e.  Environmental  and  Agricultural)?  To  what  extent  have  the 
operations impacted the phase-up of the Copernicus Programme? 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Utility 

Have  the  outputs,  results  and  impacts  of  GIO  been  achieved  at  reasonable  and 
proportionate  costs?  Could  better  results  have  been  obtained  given  the  input  and 
resources  devoted  to  the  activity?  What  aspects  of  GIO  are  the  most  efficient  or 
inefficient? Are there any administrative and reporting burdens on stakeholders and / or 
other actors?   
Are  the  different  elements  of  GIO  consistent  in  how  they  attempt  to  reach  the  stated 
objectives?  Are  there  overlaps  or  complementarities  between  the  GIO  and  any  other 
Community or Member State action in the relevant areas? 
To what extent have the effects of GIO addressed the needs and problems it aimed at 
meeting and solving?  What measures could be taken to increase this positive impact? 
What lessons from the implementation to date of GIO are useful for the implementation 
of Copernicus? 
What is the added value for stakeholders, citizens and administrations, and the relevant 
European policies? 

EU  Added 
Value 
Sustainability  To what extent are any additional positive changes (if any) brought about by GMES, or 

are any likely to last after the intervention end? 

METHOD 

The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyse the various primary and secondary data 
needed to address the evaluation objectives and to reach a conclusion on each of the evaluation questions, as well 
as to formulate recommendations.  The data collection included a desk-based review of existing documents (e.g. 
EU  regulations,  interim  evaluations,  GIO  work  programmes  and  administrative  data),  an  online  questionnaire 
covering all three related elements and directed to all categories of stakeholders, a small industry survey directed 
specifically  to  the  contractors  that  ‘built’  the  GMES  space  component  and  a  programme  of  targeted,  semi-
structured interviews with relevant individuals among key stakeholder groups. Wherever possible, the evaluation 
has sought to triangulate the information obtained through the questionnaires and interviews, with the qualitative 
material validated against evidence from the wider literature and more objective data (e.g. monitoring data).   

The first main task of the evaluation was to obtain and undertake an initial review of key documentation, from 
which a log frame and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the GIO were prepared (shown in the Annexes for 
reference).    The  data  collection  strategy  and  tools  were  also  refined  and  developed  further  during  the  initial 
phases of the evaluation, including the preparation of a single questionnaire to be used in an online survey of all 
stakeholders, policy  makers, service providers, users and beneficiaries.  A preliminary list of stakeholders and 
organisations  for  the  consultation  and  interview  programme  was  also  established.  The  core  documentation 
included  delegation  agreements,  calls  for  tender  and  other  specifications  for  GMES  components.    A  thorough 
review of these key documents provided important contextual information and provided a narrative within which 
to  situate  the  feedback  collected  through  interviews/surveys.  The  documentation  has  also  been  used  to  inform 
most  of  the  evaluation’s  key  questions,  from  relevance  to  efficiency  and  European  Added  Value.    Additional 
monitoring data on services during the period in scope for the evaluation has been collected; in particular, user 
and usage statistics for the Emergency Management (EMS) and Land Services. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
In terms of consultation strategy, more than 400 named individuals have been approached with a request for an 
interview (semi-structured) or a completed questionnaire return.  The invitations were issued to all categories of 
potential respondent with the exception of the lay public, on the assumption that ordinary citizens would have 
insufficient  understanding  of  the  technicalities  to  make  a  meaningful  return.    The  online  consultation  was 
however  advertised  widely  through  DG  GROW,  ESA,  EEA  and  the  JRC,  and  was  open  to  the  public.  The 
stakeholder analysis emphasised four core groups: Policy lead and other key parties involved in the governance 
of the initiative; GMES service operators; GMES service users, in the public and private sectors; Industrialists 
that helped build the infrastructure. 

The consultation covered each of the three evaluation elements (GIO, PAs and FP7-funded GSC) and each broad 
evaluation  question,  from  relevance  to  union  added  value.    Both  aspects  of  the  consultation  ran  for  about  12 
weeks,  in  the  period  from  mid-July  to  the  end  of  September,  in  order  to  ensure  the  maximum  number  of 
responses.    The  first  limited  number  of  industry  responses  led  to  implement  a  second,  targeted  consultation 
addressed directly to ESA contractors. The task specifications required that a least 145 individuals be consulted, 
through  interviews  and  surveys,  and  indicated  the  number  to  be  consulted  from  different  stakeholder  groups. 
Overall, 170 individuals were consulted during the course of the study.  The target number was met or exceeded 
for all stakeholder groups except for officials in the Joint Research Centre and industry representatives, where 
we had to work with a small starting population of around 50 named contacts in order to secure 21 interviews 
and survey responses.  Additional individuals were consulted within suppliers and other organisations to increase 
the overall total. 

The  interview  programme  and  survey-based  consultation  produced  rather  small  numbers  of  responses  overall, 
reflecting  the  rather  particular  nature  of  the  GMES  programme  and  the  small  population  of  people  and 
organisations with  knowledge  of  its  activities.    The  interviews  and  surveys  did not lend  themselves  to  a  more 
formal validation process, as one might do with a larger, quantitative data set.  For example, it was chosen to 
work  with  the  whole  sample  at  a  rather  high  level  of  disaggregation,  picking  out  points  of  divergence  and 
convergence  among,  for  example,  service  deliverers  and  service  users  or  between  those  involved  with  the 
infrastructure  component  or  those  involved  with  the  services  elements.    We  did  not  run  any  formal  analytical 
tests  to  identify  and  eliminate  outliers,  as  there  were  only  three  or  four  instances  where  this  could  have  been 
applicable  (e.g.  willingness  to  pay  a  given  price  for  an  annual  subscription)  and  we  chose  to  present  the  full 
range of feedback and simply use a weighted average.  The credibility of responses was tackled ex ante through 
the design of the questionnaire and interview checklists, and ex post through the analysts coding of feedback and 
pull through of clearly articulated and substantive points.  

The log frame, setting out the general and specific objectives for the GMES programme provided the basis for 
developing a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators. Unfortunately, there were no indicators specified in 
the GMES GIO regulation (2010) and while the individual work programmes did include a series of indicators 
for  two  services,  they  focused  on  activities  and  outputs  (e.g.  number  of  downloads)  and  did  not  have  any 
baseline or targets associated with them.  The indicator analysis therefore has not been able to benefit from any 
concrete  points  of  reference:  the  impact  assessment  provided  no  baseline  or  targets  for  the  indicators,  and  the 
interim  evaluations  had  commented  on  the  absence  of  clear,  SMART  objectives  and  recommended  the 
programme  managers  improve  their  monitoring  and  reporting  activities.    There  were  clearly  improvements  in 
reporting  by  the  GIO  services,  however,  there  was  no  development  of  agreed  specific,  measurable  and  time 
based targets, and the ex post evaluation has therefore had to be content with estimating various outcomes and 
impacts in isolation and then offering judgements on their sufficiency based on feedback from the surveys and 
interviews and selected references to the wider literature on the impacts of public investments in space. 

RESULTS  

The evaluation revealed in general a solid consensus among stakeholders regarding the relevance and usefulness 
of  the  GIO,  PAs  and  FP7  Funded  space  component.  The  GIO  programme  under  review  here  worked  well 
overall.  The positives include the good level of cooperation achieved between the EC and ESA, and also the 
demonstration of sufficient progress within the programme to support the arguments for the creation of a budget 
line for Copernicus (circa €4.3 billion) within the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020.  Aspects 
that worked less well include: the limited integration of space and non-space data within the fledgling services, 
cross-service coordination and user engagement.   

According  to  the  survey  held  for  this  evaluation,  all  contractors  considered  the  work  had  improved  their 
technological  capabilities  ‘to  a  large  extent,’  and  all  respondents  reported  a  positive  benefit  in  terms  of  their 
competitiveness.  

11 

 
 
Turning to the question of social impacts, desk research has estimated lower bound in the final assessment of the 
benefits to the GMES space component and suggests that the GMES infrastructure has produced total societal 
benefits of up to €3 billion. There have been wider socio-economic benefits (impacts) too, which are presented in 
more  detail  in  the  following  sections..  The  space  component  itself  looks  to  have  been  cost-effective,  when 
judged against the cost of the earlier EO space programmes.  The GMES programme cost around €2.3 billion in 
total (in 2002 prices), to develop the first seven satellites and to launch three of them.  In real terms, this is lower 
than  the  equivalent  cost  to develop,  launch and  operate the  Envisat satellite,  which has  fewer  instruments  and 
lower levels of functionality. 

The  stakeholder  interviews  found  a  clear  majority  on  the  production  side  (e.g.  DG  GROW,  ESA,  Industry 
Bodies) taking the view that the programme had been sufficiently resourced and had delivered value for money.  
The survey was rather positive, with over 80% of respondents rating the investments as medium to good value 
for money. The GIO / GSC fulfilled their objectives and underpinned the launch of Copernicus, so in that sense 
they must be considered to have been ‘useful.’  However, the full service is still being developed and as such the 
issue of wider utility is only starting now.   

The programme under review here provides high levels of European Added Value.  No single EU country could 
have created a similar system on its own, partly for reasons of cost, but also for reasons of willingness to invest.  
National programmes are naturally very much more limited in their scope and only fulfil a limited number of the 
GMES functions and typically at lower levels of functionality.   

In terms of financial sustainability and the extent to which the GIO services could have been developed without 
dedicated EU funding or could become self-financing in future, the conclusion is  ‘no’ on both counts,  based on 
the costs involved in the creation of the infrastructure and service operations and the EU (and global) scope of 
those products and services.  

Turning to the question of the sustainability of the changes brought about by the GIO programme, the evaluation 
suggest there will be a legacy in terms of better policy choices or enhanced technological capabilities. For the 
manufacturers  and  technical  services  companies  that  have  built  the  infrastructure  and  delivered  much  of  the 
services component, the contracts will have quite a lasting effect, conferring a competitive advantage that people 
anticipate  may  last  for  five  years  or  more.  The  opportunities  for  value-added  resellers  and  downstream 
businesses have yet to be crystallised in any serious scale. 

The results are also based on interim reports and other independent  studies mentioned in the contractor report in 
the appendix B, (OP n. ET0116321ENN). 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

RELEVANCE 

There is a solid consensus regarding the relevance of the GIO, which corresponded exactly with Europe’s needs 
as  regards  the creation of  a European  Earth  Monitoring system.    This  view  is held broadly across stakeholder 
groups, including Member States and industry. The growing pressures of climate change, natural disasters and 
migration  have  crystallised  these  views  about  the  focus  of  the  programme  in  the  minds  of  many.  The 
programmes’ objectives clearly correspond to Europe’s defined needs for the establishment of a comprehensive, 
permanent  and  global earth monitoring system.    Five  years  after  the publication of  the  GMES GIO regulation 
(2010), each of the six services foreseen remains important to the information needs of Europe’s policy makers 
and  public  services.    Indeed,  concerns  around  climate  change  have  escalated  further  and  the  issues  of  civil 
security and humanitarian crises have leapfrogged over many political priorities to emerge as some of the most 
pressing challenges of our era.  

There was also a clear need for an interim programme to bridge the limited scope of the Preparatory Actions and 
the  anticipated  launch  of  the  full  GIO  service  in  2014,  at  the  earliest,  ensuring  continuity  of  service  from  the 
PAs, further developing the other four prototypical services, ensuring access to space-derived and other EO data 
and  supporting ESA  with  the  creation  of  the  Sentinels infrastructure.    EU  action  was necessary  (in  the  period 
2011-2013)  to  ensure  continuity  with  the  Preparatory  Actions  and  to  establish  GIO  operational  services  on  a 
more  permanent  basis  in  areas  of  sufficient  maturity  and  with  potential  for  the  development  of  downstream 
services. 

12 

 
 
 
EFFECTIVENESS 

The three elements under review were broadly effective as a means by which to achieve their stated objectives, 
albeit they were perhaps the pragmatic rather than the ideal choice of instruments for the development of such a 
complex and wide-ranging set of global information services and its related space infrastructure. However, the 
use of FP7 as a means by which to co-finance the development of the new infrastructure can be criticised, as the 
EU  RTD  Framework  Programme  is  not  designed  to  produce  this  type  of  large-scale  integrated  system.    This 
created certain inefficiencies, however, there was nonetheless recognition that this was a practical solution and 
that any such difficulties were simply a cost that had to be coped with. The GMES GIO Regulation (2010) and 
the  related  work  programmes  specify  the  mechanisms  but  do  not  rationalise  their  choice  of  recommended 
funding instruments , nor do they explain the thinking behind the level of financial investment allocated to the 
programmes.  This final evaluation confirms that the work programmes had been completed successfully and on 
time,  with  contracts  having  been  put  in  place  in  line  with  the  calls  and  project  work  completed  as  per  the 
specifications. 

Around one third of the total GIO programme budget was invested in the further development and operation of 
the two core services, EMS (€12M) and LMS (€26M).  The programme’s limited budget meant it was able to 
spend very much less on its objectives relating to user uptake and the development of downstream applications 
(c.  10%).    The  analysis  shows  that  very  little  funding  was  provided  to  support  the  required  level  of  data 
harmonisation  and  gap  filling,  for  ex.  between  European  dataset  and  National  mapping,  Land  registries  and 
cadastral agencies,, which had been flagged already as an issue by the Interim Evaluation. In this framework it 
was  difficult  to  progress  with  the  implementation  of  the  core  services  beyond  the  EMS  and  LMS  operations.  
Due  to  the  limited  resources,  the  GIO  programme  had  not  made  neither  as  much  progress  as  it  ought  to  have 
done  also  in  the  provision  of  in  situ  data  and  its  integration  with  other  existing  space-derived  data  from  the 
Contributing Missions.  

There have clearly been some contributions to European businesses, in terms of jobs and growth.  The  €530M 
the GSC spent with industry has helped to maintain high value jobs and technological capabilities across more 
than 230 suppliers.  Moreover, around 20% of the contractors were SMEs, with a significant number working on 
new value added services.9  Downstream  applications are expected to become more of a priority going forwards, 
as Horizon 2020 begins to focus on these issues, and assuming the Sentinels deliver the required data continuity, 
having    the  potential  for  far  more  dramatic  expansion  than  the  classic  upstream  sector10.  Contractors  are 
universally positive about the impacts of the GIO contracts on their competitiveness, a benefit that is expected to 
produce a legacy over the following 5-10 years.  

As  for  the  wider  socio-economic  impact,  it  is  clear  that  the  cost  of  natural  disasters  to  society  amounts  to 
hundreds of billions in any decade, and a meaningful if small fraction of Europe’s total economic output (before 
we consider the human cost).  As an example, the benefits from satellite-based landslide monitoring suggest the 
GMES could save 10% of the €1 billion a year estimated annual cost from landslides.  Floods and fires cause far 
more extensive damage, and taken together, even if we assume the Emergency services have enabled Europe to 
reduce  the  economic  impact  of  those  crises  by  just  1%,by  enabling  early  warning    that  one  service  will  have 

9  These  data are taken  from  a  PowerPoint  presentation  entitled,  FP7 Implementation:  ESA Quarterly  Status Reports; Final 
Status Report, which the Copernicus Office presented to the 3rd meeting of the H2020 “Space” Programme Committee on 
the 2nd October 2014.  This ‘wrap-up’ presentation shows the final industrial commitment for FP7 space was €535.2M, by 31 
December 2013.  The presentation also shows there were 45 individual SME suppliers out of a total of 236 organisations (c. 
19%),  with  around  €68M  in  industrial  contracts  as  at  30  September  2013.    This  is  around  13%  of  the  €530M  in  total 
industrial  commitments  that  had  been  agreed  at  this  time,  with  a  further  €5M  or  so  in  total  industrial  commitments  (all 
organisations, all firm sizes) between the end of September 2013 and the end of December 2013. 
10  The  space  sector  has  tended  to  be  thought  of  in  terms  of  an  upstream  and  downstream  sector.    The  upstream  sector 
comprises  three  main  components,  launchers,  satellites  and  spacecraft  and  ground  systems,  mostly  manufacturing  and 
technical  services.    The  downstream  sector  relates  to  the  services  provided  using  space  systems,  whether  that  is  satellite 
telecommunications  (e.g.  services  provided  by  satellite  operators)  or  consumer  /  business  services  based  on  space-derived 
data  or  functionality  but  provided  by  companies  located  outside  the  classic  space  sector  (e.g.  navigation,  banking,  data 
handling).    The  OECD  annual  report,  The  Space  Economy  at  a  Glance,  estimates  the  split  between  the  upstream  and 
downstream sectors was around 30:70, in 2013.  The annual report, Size and Health of the UK Space Industry, shows that for 
the UK economy, that ratio has changed from around 1:2 in 1999 to around 1:4 in 2013, with the upstream (manufacturing) 
sector broadly tracking growth rates in the wider economy, while the downstream sector has shown annual growth rates of 5-
8%.  The UK Space Innovation and Growth Strategy 2014-2030 (Action Plan) anticipates the global downstream sector will 
continue to grow strongly and will be the main driver of the expanding space economy, possibly worth £400 billion by 2030, 
which is around four times its estimated value in 2013. 

13 

 
 
                                                            
saved  many  millions  of  Euros  in  the  period 2011-2013  and  far  more  than  the €10M  or  so  cost of running  the 
service over the period.11 

The programmes had had a positive effect on the level of cooperation and interaction within the EO community, 
in  Europe  and  internationally;  increased  and  improved  cooperation  occurred  among  EU  member  states  and 
between the EU and third countries.  

GMES GIO/Copernicus is expected to have a positive impact on Europe’s industrial competitiveness and growth 
but,  as    already  noted  in  the  Interim  evaluation,  it  is  too  early  for  such  wider  economic  effects  to  have 
materialized.  

EFFICIENCY 

The  evaluation  sought  to  understand  the  extent  to  which  the  programme    had  delivered  on  its  objectives  at  a 
reasonable cost. It proved difficult to compare the efficiency of the two main services, emergency management 
and land monitoring because of their wholly different service offers: The EMS service offers a bespoke and often 
labour intensive information service to a relatively small number of end users, where the land service emphasises 
multiple data products, and is closer to an international data centre, addressed by thousands of users. The GIO 
work programmes did include lists of indicators for the larger work packages, which were service specific.  For 
example, the pan-European land cover monitoring service had seven indicators, which included the ‘total area 
covered  by  high  resolution  data,’  the  ‘number  of  downloads  and  page  views’  and  the  ‘results  of  validation  of 
products.’    In  just  one  or  two  cases,  the  work  programmes  included  indicators  linked  with  some  quality  or 
quantum of output.  The very great majority of indicators were not linked with any specific target.   

In the case of EMS, there was an expectation that the service should be ready to deal with at least 50 activations 
a year.  The number of activations was lower than the expected target in both 2012 and 2013 and was exactly 50 
in  2014.    The  number  of  activations  is  contingent  upon  the  number  of  emergencies  that  occur,  as  well  as  the 
awareness of the service among prospective users and their perception that it is relevant and helpful.12  In terms 
of  efficiency,  the  EMS  mapping  services  benefited  from  around  €10M  in  service  contracts,  which  produced 
response  to  around  65  activations,  and  the  preparation  of  more  than  500  maps,  across  the  period  2012-2013, 
which is judged to be reasonable value for money.   

Although no data are available on the extent to which the GIO had enabled savings to be made through improved 
early warnings or better emergency response, for example, given the scale of the economic disruption, even a 1% 
contribution  across  all  types  of  emergencies,  would  produce  annual  savings  of  tens  of  millions,  which  is 
substantially more than the annual cost of running the whole Emergency Service.  

The work programmes similarly listed various outputs and indicators for the Land Monitoring Service; however, 
they provide no specific targets and the LMS monitoring reports focus heavily on page-views. The LMS had a 
total budget of €26M for the period 2011-2013, and has created a service that combines satellite and in-situ data 
to provide data sets on around 40 variables, from vegetation dynamics to tree cover and land-use.  The data sets 
vary quite dramatically in terms of their extent and thematic content, with the more generic type of maps, such as 
the  Corine  Land  Cover  maps  and  Urban  Atlas  attracting  the  largest  number  of  page  views  (9,000+  and  3,00+ 
page views respectively in 2012; 13,300+ and 14,500+ in 2014), where more specialised maps on for example 
groundwater or emissions were attracting page views in the high hundreds.  The top 20 maps recorded around 
33,000 page views in total, in 2012.  The EEA advises that downloads run at around 60% of page views, which 
would be around 20,000 downloads.  The global element of the LMS also maintains a count of registered uses, 
which had reached around 375 (service continuity) and 416 (data production), as at the end of 2013, and with 
download volumes on the order of 54GBs and 130GBs respectively. 

People acknowledge the programmes had been properly managed, however, some argue the balance of priorities 
had  been  wrong  (e.g.  too  much  of  the  total  investment  had  gone  into  the  space  component  and  insufficient 
attention had been paid to the development of the services), which had slowed the rate of progress overall and 

11 Source: Booz & Company, Cost Benefit Analysis for GMES, Final, 19th September 2011, section 4.3.1, including EM-
DAT statistics. 

12 The data on the timeliness of the service shows that only around 15% of requests were dealt with within the target response 
time of 24 hours, for rush mode, although we understand this has improved post GMES with the expansion of capacity. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
effectively  reduced  the  GIO  programme’s  outputs.    From  the  evaluation  perspective,  this  reflects  the  under-
resourcing  of  GIO  rather  than  an  over-commitment  by  the  EU  to  the  space  component.  Maybe  better  results 
could have been attained given the input and resources devoted to the activity, had the focus been different (e.g. 
tackling  specific,  data  related  obstacles  to  launching  extended  EO  services  for  particular  user  groups)  and  the 
procurement  strategy  more  innovative  (e.g.  public  private  partnerships).    A  closer  coordination  with  member 
states and other Commission Services could have produced a more ‘efficient’ series of service specifications and 
architectures, for example for climate change, where member states have already made substantial investments.  
This additional complexity, however, (e.g. increased coordination and harmonisation) may have slowed progress 
further  still  and  to  a  degree  that the  whole  project  may  have  been  at  risk.  The  efficiency with  which the  GIO 
programme was created and service continuity assured is counterbalanced by the less positive support to take-up, 
access  to  data  from  contributing  missions,  support  for  downstream  applications  and  coordination  of  data.  The 
relevance and quality of the data holdings are the aspects that were most widely judged to be highly satisfactory, 
while  ease  of  navigation  and  updates  were  the  aspects  least  widely  regarded  as  satisfactory.  Several  people 
however noted the efficiency of the ‘common data programme,’ which maximised reuse and delivered various 
economies of scale.   

As for administrative burden that could have an impact on efficiency, the great majority of the expenditure under 
review here was committed through the GMES space component, and coordinated by ESA.  This expenditure 
split roughly 80:20 between external procurement through contracts with industry and ESA internal costs.  The 
€500M+ of industrial procurement was managed by ESA, following their purchasing processes and rules.  The 
€50M in GIO contracts were implemented by the European Commission, and as such these contractors did have 
a  view  of  the  Commission’s  reporting  requirements  and  any  attendant  administrative  burden  on  their 
organisations.    Several  contributors  noted  the  additional  time  delays  that  had  arisen  as  a  result  of  headcount 
constraints within the implementing agencies.  

According to ESA and its member states, the GMES space component (GSC) was delivered on time and within 
budget.  Less robust seems to be ESA’s financial controls. The monitoring of technical and financial progress 
relied upon high-level roadmaps that were not sufficiently detailed to  allow the Commission to follow closely 
the  programme’s  implementation.    This  limitation  in  the  Commission’s  control  was  defined  in  the  delegation 
agreement  with  ESA  and  reflected  a  decision  to  allow  the  Agency  to  manage  the  programme,  in 
acknowledgement of its competence and for the avoidance of duplication. ESA’s approach to financial reporting 
did  not  allow  a  clear  comparison  between  actual  versus  budgeted  expenditure  at  a  detailed  level.    The 
Commission’s concerns about transparency were echoed by an Independent Auditor’s decision to qualify ESA’s 
overall financial accounts for 2011 (not just the GMES space component).  Following this ‘qualified opinion,’ 
the Commission and ESA set up a task force to work on actions to improve financial reporting, with a  view to 
avoiding a similar situation for the coming years.  This was achieved, and the Independent Auditors report for 
2012  stated  that  the  financial  statements  gave  a  true  and  fair  account.  In  the  annual  report  of  DG  GROW  on 
internal  audits  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  (October  2014),  it  is  recommended  to  improve  the 
governance  arrangements  for  the  space  component  and  in  particular  enhanced  monitoring.13    These  particular 
audits  took  place  in  the  transition  period  between  the  GIO  programme  2011-2013  and  the  operational  phase, 
renamed  Copernicus.    The  concerns  were  expressed  more  fully  in  a  Commission  working  document,14  which 
was prepared in 2013, and made several recommendations regarding necessary improvements in ESA’s financial 
reporting arrangements when moving to the new Delegation agreement (2014-2020 MFF funds), where the co-
funding rates were inverted with the EU carrying 70% of the costs and possibly any programme overruns. 

COHERENCE 

The  log  frame  analysis  and  supporting  interviews  revealed  a  clear  logic  connecting  the  elements  and  the 
evolution  from  the  Preparatory  Actions  through  to  two  GMES  fast-track  services  and  the  GIO  programme’s 
inputs  to  the  space  component  and  oversight  of  access  to  other  space  data  (contributing  missions).    The  GIO 
programme also built on the work of the FP7 funded GMES Space Component and in particular the coordinated 
provision  of observation data  both  from  existing  space  infrastructure (Contributing Missions)  and from  in  situ 
observing systems.  In simple terms, GIO built on the outputs of GSC and prepared for the operational phase.  

13  COM(2014)  615  Final.    Brussels  3.10.2014.    REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  AND  THE  COUNCIL.    Annual  report  to  the  Discharge  Authority  on  internal  audits  carried  out  in  2013 
(Article 99(5) of the Financial Regulation) 
14  SWD  (2014)  0276.    COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  Roadmaps  for  international  cooperation 
Accompanying  the  document  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Report on the implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in research and innovation. 

15 

 
 
                                                            
GIO would not have been successful without the FP7 space component, and Copernicus would not be working 
so well without GIO. 

For several commentators, the move from FP7 research projects to GIO was problematic, with for example the 
requirement to launch new calls for proposals for GIO that made no commitment to take forward the work of the 
research projects  or  even  to involve  those established  consortia  in  the further development  of  services.   There 
were  exceptions;  apparently  there  was  a  smooth  transition  from  the  Myocean  research  projects  to  the  Marine 
Service.  Paradoxically, where several interviewees criticised the poor connections between the SAFER research 
projects and EMS, two interviewees criticised the marine service for overly tight links between Myocean and the 
Marine service, which was felt to have disadvantaged or even excluded new entrants.  The link between the PAs 
and GIO is considered to have worked better, albeit on a narrower basis.  There were also concerns raised about 
the balance of funding priorities within the various elements, and the extent to which that was coherent with the 
programmes’ objectives: specifically that GIO was too small and that the balance between the expenditures on 
the space and non-space components was misjudged in light of the overall objectives.  There should have been 
greater support for the in-situ component and for the work on user uptake.  ESA also judged that a larger GIO 
programme would have allowed the agency to buy four satellites, rather than two and then a second two, which 
would have improved unit costs and reduced the overall costs for EU taxpayers. 

As  for  complementarities  between  GIO  and  other  EU  or  MS  actions,  for  land  cover  inventories,  for  instance, 
there are 28 national inventories, which are leveraged by GIO within Corine. There are some overlaps in services 
including  for  example,  flood  alerts  (2013)  in  Germany  and  Hungary  or  the  Spanish  National  Plan  for  Land 
Observations  (PNOT).A  possible  duplication  is  between  GIO  and  France’s  SPOT  satellites  in  their  respective 
coverage  over  Africa.  Complementarities  needed  to  be  developed  further  and  there  remain  substantial 
opportunities / needs for the follow-on Copernicus Programme to contribute more to the global efforts in key EO 
areas (e.g. environment). Member State programmes typically cover only the national territory, or have at best a 
regional  focus,  whereas  only  GIO  was  capable  of  providing  EU-wide  (or  wider)  and  harmonised  data  and  a 
useful benchmark to solve the “patchwork” issue arising when data from different national systems needed to be 
combined.  At the same time, value from MS instruments was recognised to support local needs of “zooming in” 
thanks  to  its  higher  resolution.  The  overlaps  might  also  be  considered  as  complementarities,  with  different 
instruments  and  levels  of  resolution  (e.g.  Italy’s  COSMO-SkyMed  programme)  available  through  EU  and 
national EO missions.  

The overlaps do not need to be eliminated, but rather need to be managed in order to maximise the potential of 
existing  assets  and  instruments.    As  an  example,  considering  the  partial  overlap  between  EMS  and  the 
International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, it can be useful to have different schemes running in parallel 
to  support  emergency  management  and  relief  operations  during  major  disasters.  The  very  high  levels  of 
transparency required by the Commission around the GIO had helped avoid EU / MS overlaps.  The regular and 
detailed 3-monthly reports to the FP7 space committee provided MS with the opportunity to question EC / ESA 
plans  on  the  one  hand  and  to  make  adjustments  to  their  own  programmes  on  the  other.  The  GIO  largely 
complemented MS EO operations, with just a small number of examples of substantive overlaps with member 
state  programmes,  which  in  practical  terms,  tended  to  provide  users  with  access  to  additional  instruments  and 
data sources and did not result in substantial duplication of effort / public investment. 

UTILITY 

There is a clear consensus among the stakeholders on the utility of GIO and on the fact that the programme had 
enabled  substantial  progress  to  be  made  as  regards  the  operation  of  the  two  core  services  and  the  further 
development and creation of the related space infrastructure. Several people noted the importance of the move 
from  the research budget to the MFF and the launch of the Sentinels, all of which had been facilitated by the 
GIO  programme.  The  majority  of  stakeholders,  however,  view  this  whole  domain  as  a  work-in-progress,  so 
while  most  people  are  satisfied  with  the  achievements  of  the  GMES  programmes,  there  are  numerous  points 
where  they  feel  more  needs  to  be  done.    The  resolution  of  those  challenges  must  fall  to  Copernicus,  but  for 
completeness,  they  comprise:  (i)  a  very  much  sharper  focus  on  (and  understanding  of)  user  needs,  (ii)  greater 
certainty  around  the  longer-term  plans  /  funding  for  the  service  and  (iii)  the  development  of  downstream 
services.  Others  recognised  that  GIO  addressed  ambitious  goals,  and  to  some  extent  it  already  addressed  the 
problems it aimed at solving.  

GIO demonstrated its usefulness through its support to Member States during various extreme flood events (e.g. 
in  Poland).    In  the  field  of  agriculture,  GIO  data  were  used  for  crop  yield  forecasting.    Stakeholders  also 
commented that GIO has been successful in setting the ground for the coming activities, although there is still a 
long way to go, also in the light that at the end of the Programme, in 2013, the first Sentinel satellite had yet to 

16 

 
 
be launched  out of the seven planned. Some progresses have been too slow but it is not clear this is the result of 
flaws in the system, but rather a reflection of the intrinsic challenges. The security service for example is still not 
completely operational, and that will be highly important but this is perhaps not a failure of the GIO  programme.  
These  services  intersect  with  some  rather  tricky  /  delicate  political  issues,  around  MS  sovereignty  and  in 
particular  the  overlap  with  defence-related  security.    Copernicus  will  also  support  EU  external  actions,  for 
example, which immediately raises issues of sovereignty; no MS will relinquish control over its own defence.  
These issues therefore take a very long time to work through.  On balance, the longer than anticipated timeframe 
required to address these social needs should not been considered a failure of the GIO, in the light of the high 
ambitions, the significance of existing challenges and the political context. 

Overall, we conclude that the programme successfully addressed its key objectives and in that sense it must be 
considered to have been ‘useful.’  However, certain elements were left unfinished (e.g. the further development 
of  four  services)  and  the  full  European  earth  monitoring  service  offer  is  still  being  developed  by  GMES’ 
successor, the Copernicus Programme, and as such the issue of wider utility is only starting now. 

The GIO programmes underestimated the extent to which we might need to explain and market the service to 
end-users.  User take-up and communications were only allocated a small fraction of the total GIO budget, and 
effectively nothing from the space component; on balance, not enough funding was allocated to promotion and 
explanation. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

Stakeholders were unanimous in the opinion that there was additional value from GIO.  While several Member 
States  have  their  own  earth  observation  structures,  the  European  programme  provided  data  in  a  standardised 
format  and  of  good  quality  which  covered  the  whole  of  Europe  and  in  some  cases  even  had  global  coverage.  
GIO offered higher levels of assured continuity of service, as compared with anything available nationally (even 
for the US): a full-scale, permanent screen of sensors. It was just the logical way forward, which was apparent to 
MS and was the basis for the Baveno agreement and the decision to move forward with a pan-EU programme.  It 
also  means  that  Europe  has  met  its  geopolitical  ambitions  of  creating  an  independent  EO  infrastructure  for 
Europe.  Furthermore,  there  is  substantial  added  value  for  a  wide  set  of  European  policies  in  accessing  a 
homogeneous database and derived-products for the whole of the EU, and in some cases beyond.  The necessity 
to be able to access data of a comparable format across European borders is especially apparent for issues, which 
are, by their very nature, not limited to a single Member State such as environmental and land issues as well as 
disasters or climate change that need to be addressed on a global level. Earth observation on such a level could 
not have been run or financed by any single Member State, and national programmes are naturally very much 
more limited in their scope and only fulfil a limited number of the GIO functions and typically at lower levels of 
functionality 

For Europe’s EO  industry, the added value of the GIO programme and the space component in particular was 
financial, on the assumption that the Sentinel programme would have been very much smaller or delayed without 
the Commission’s co-funding.  Those additional EU funds as a minimum increased the volume of investment by 
a third and arguably ensured the infrastructure programme went ahead at all, thus ensuring that Europe’s space 
industry remains globally competitive and maintains its cutting-edge technological capabilities.  The added value 
for  ESA  is  that  it  was  able  to  achieve  its  goal  of  ensuring  that  Europe’s  space  industry  remains  globally 
competitive and maintains its cutting-edge technological capabilities.  It is part of the ESA mandate to support 
EU industry.  The GIO satellites and sensors are very powerful and much better than any other systems that are 
flying currently, whether they have for the US, Japan or Israel. 

The added value for citizens was less easy for stakeholders to determine, however, the desk research identified 
numerous examples of service activations that had contributed to crisis management and flood warnings, which 
undoubtedly  reduced  the  economic  and  social  dislocation  of  those  emergencies  for  Europe’s  citizens  and 
possibly also saved lives. 

SUSTAINABILITY 

Considering  the  costs  involved  in  the  creation  of  the  infrastructure  and  service  operations  and  the  EU  (and 
global) scope of GIO products and services these would have not been developed without dedicated EU funding 
nor could become self-financing in future and it is clear that the Copernicus Programme will continue to need 
substantial public funding to go forward.  

For  the  sustainability  of  the  programme,  the  continued  support  of  the  EC,  including  financing,  was  seen  as 
necessary.  In turn, the Member States would need to see their needs addressed through the programme in order 

17 

 
 
to continue to support it through the EU.  ESA stated that it is working on the next generation of satellites: the 
first four sentinels are what one might call first generation; the next two satellites will be a new generation. The 
intention is that ESA / EU should have a clear view as to what the next generation of satellites will look like, by 
2017.  This will have the same kind of effect as the first development programme, helping EU industry develop 
its capabilities and stay at the cutting edge of technology in the field. 

Turning  to  the  question  of  the  sustainability  of  the  changes  brought  about  by  the  GIO  programme,  ther  desk 
research and stakeholder interviews suggest there will be a legacy in terms of better policy choices or enhanced 
technological capabilities.  However, the various services are akin to any utility, which is to say they are valuable 
while  they  are  running;  turn  them  off  and  the  decision  making  and  operational  processes  they  supported  will 
quickly need to revert to alternative inputs or be degraded. 

For the manufacturers and technical services companies that have built the infrastructure and delivered much of 
the services component, the termination of the GIO programme without the progression to the new Copernicus 
Programme would have seen much of their competitive advantage (knowledge) competed away over a period of 
several  years.    The  supplier  survey  suggests  the  GIO  contracts  will  have  quite  a  lasting  effect  however, 
conferring a competitive advantage that people anticipate may last for five years or more.  The opportunities for 
value-added resellers and downstream businesses, however,  have yet to be crystallised in any serious scale. 

CONCLUSIONS  

In conclusion, five years after the entry into force of the GIO programme, the initial objectives of the programme 
remain  relevant  to  the  current  needs  of  users  among  policy  makers,  public  institutions  and  commercial 
businesses.  The  three  elements  under  review  were  effective  as  a  means  by  which  to  achieve  their  stated 
objectives,  albeit  they  were  perhaps  the  pragmatic  rather  than  the  ideal  choice  of  instruments  for  the 
development  of  such  a  complex  and  wide-ranging set  of global information  services. GIO  made  wide-ranging 
and  important  contributions  to  the  phase-up  of  a  fully-operational  programme.    However,  the  limited  funding 
available for the programme had constrained progress, in an absolute sense, and at the time of the programme’s 
conclusion,  there  remained  substantial  work  to  be  done  before  users  would  have  access  to  the  full  range  of 
effective, operational services that had been planned. 

The  GIO  and  its  FP7-funded  space  component  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  phase-up  of  the  Copernicus 
programme, but there remains substantial work to be done even within the four most advanced services. While 
the opinion is strongly positive overall, there are some reservations about the programme's effectiveness and its 
impact on the phase-up of Copernicus, mainly related to the rate of progress with the implementation of the full 
set  of  anticipated  services,  the  provision  of  in  situ  data  and  integration  with  other  existing  space-derived  data 
from  the  Contributing  Missions.  The  GIO  programme  has  largely  delivered  on  each  of  its  specific  objectives 
(intended  effects),  perhaps  with  the  exception  of  promotion  to  users  and  the  development  of  the  downstream 
sector. It enabled the creation of a permanent European earth monitoring system, in line with the Commission’s 
Communication on Europe 2020, which saw GIO as a key component of European space policy and a means by 
which to help address key global challenges.  Moreover, the programme made possible the creation of a series of 
data and information services that have the potential to deliver substantial wider social and economic benefits in 
the future. The GMES Space Component produced substantial direct benefits for Europe’s space industry, with 
more than 230 suppliers benefitting from €530M in ESA contracts, including 48 SMEs.   

There  have  been  many  concrete  operational  successes  as  regards  the  GIO  programme’s  contributions  to  EU 
policy,  with  the  growing  use  of  the  LMS  and  EMS  services  by  policy  makers  and  public  agencies  in  the 
agriculture, environment and climate change areas.  The EMS services have been used to support the information 
requirements  of  various  government  agencies  around  for  example  flooding,  earthquakes,  fires  and  other 
environmental  hazards.  Turning  to  the  question  of  social  impacts,  generic  industrial  statistics  can  be  used  to 
estimate  the  benefits  of  investments  in  the  space  infrastructure,  working  with  economic  multipliers  for  EO 
capital investment to estimate the wider private returns (the literature suggests these fall in the range 2-4) and 
more general estimates of spill overs to investments in research.  Based on those parameters, lower and upper 
bound  effects  for  the  programme  can  be  estimated,  with  the  direct  effect  of  the  €530M  (2006  prices)  of  FP7 
funding  that ESA  committed  through  its  200+  industrial  contracts  falling in  the range  €1 billion  to €2  billion, 
while the related spill over effects, using standard multipliers, falls in the range €2 billion to €6 billion, giving a 
total  benefit  falling  in  the  range  of  €3  billion  to  €8  billion.  These  are  broad  estimates  that  rely  on  the  use  of 

18 

 
 
 
general multipliers and the spill over effects are subject to substantial time lags: using the lower bound estimates 
the GIO infrastructure has produced total societal benefits of up to €3 billion. 

There  have  been  wider  socio-economic  benefits  (impacts)  too.To  estimate  the  scale  of  the  economic  costs  of 
disasters in Europe, like floods or fires or landslides, which run into the many hundreds of millions of Euros each 
year  and  compare  it  with  potential  savings  through  the  use  of  the  GIO  emergency  service,  for  instance,  is 
difficult, although some estimates exist (for ex. ELDAT, Munich Re). However, given the scale of the economic 
disruption,  even  a  1%  contribution  across  all  types  of  emergencies,  would  produce  annual  savings  of  tens  of 
millions, which is substantially more than the annual cost of running the whole EMS service. There were also a 
number of additional and unexpected positive outcomes.  In particular, the programme had a positive effect on 
cooperation.  Increased  and  improved  cooperation  is reported  as  occurring  among  Member  States  and  between 
the EU and third countries.. 

The  GIO    and  its  FP7-funded  element  for  2007-2013  had  limited  direct  impact  on  the  Europe  2020  strategy, 
however,  the  programme  enabled  further  progress  to  be  made  with  the  GIO  project  and  made  possible  the 
creation of a series of data and information services that have the potential to deliver substantial wider social and 
economic  benefits  in  the  future.    As  such,  the  contribution  of  GMES  GIO,  now  Copernicus,  to  the  EU  2020 
strategy  remains  an  important  work  in  progress.  The  services  component  has  produced  useful  benefits  too,  in 
terms  of  improved operations  and  improved  sales. The  effect on  employment  was  less  strong.  There  has been 
only  limited  progress  with  respect  to  the  development  of  downstream  applications;  however,  some  services 
users' organisations are providing value-added services, thanks to GIO products and data, to downstream users.  
Stakeholders expect downstream applications and value-added resellers to become more of a priority in the next 
future.The transition from a research programme to an operational budget is an important development for GIO, 
and was made possible in part by the success of the programme. Two issues, however, emerge as negative: the 
limited integration of space and non-space data within the fledgling services; and user engagement.  There was a 
need  for  further  consolidation  and  integration  of  existing  national  and  regional  systems  into  the  European 
systems. 

It  is  difficult  to  compare  the  efficiency  of  the  service  because  of  their  wholly  different  offers,  however  users 
seem  willing  to  pay  an  annual  subscription,  which  suggests  the  GIO  created  a  service  that  offers  reasonable 
value for money. The space component itself looks to have been cost-effective, when judged against the cost of 
earlier  EO  space  programmes.    The  programme  and  actions  are  perceived  as  properly  managed,  although  the 
balance  of  priorities  has  been  wrong  (e.g.  too  much  space  and  insufficient  attention  to  services),  which  had 
increased  the  absolute  costs  for  the  programme  overall  and  slowed  the  rate  of  progress  (again,  effectively 
increasing costs).  . 

The  great  majority  of  the  expenditure  under  review  here  was  committed  through  the  space  component,  and 
coordinated by ESA, following its purchasing processes and rules and not those of the European Commission.  
As  a  result,  these  contracts  provide  no  view  of  the  Commission’s  reporting  requirements  or  any  associated 
administrative  burden.  Industry  contributors  stated  that  the  programme’  reporting  requirements  were  quite 
demanding.    Financial  and  technical  reporting  was  judged  to  be  unnecessarily  complex  and  overly  protracted, 
however, there was a sense that FP7 contracts would tend to require even higher levels of technical reporting and 
review and as such bring a higher burden than was the case for contract funding. The small number of specialist 
SMEs  interviewed  argued  that  the  Commission’s  standard  reporting  requirements  were  off-putting  and  that 
invoicing  was  rather  complex  and  meant  securing  payment  was  sometimes  difficult  and  always  rather  slow, 
which in turn had created problems with their cash flow.  

The GIO programme also built on the work of the FP7 funded GMES Space Component and in particular the 
coordinated  provision  of  observation  data  both  from  existing  space  infrastructure  (Contributing  Missions)  and 
from  in  situ  observing  systems.    In  simple  terms,  GIO  built  on  the  outputs  of  GSC  and  prepared  for  the 
operational  phase.    GIO  would  not  have  been  successful  without  the  FP7  space  component,  and  Copernicus 
would not be working so well without GIO. 

The  GIO  /  GSC  fulfilled  their  objectives  and  underpinned  the  launch  of  Copernicus,  so  in  that  sense  the 
programmes must be considered to have been ‘useful.’  However, the full service is still being developed and as 
such the issue of wider utility is only starting now.  As noted above, the majority of stakeholders view this whole 
domain  as  a  work-in-progress,  so  while  most  people  are  reasonably  satisfied  with  the  achievements  of  the 
programmes, there are numerous points where more needs to be done.  Those challenges must fall to Copernicus 
now, but for completeness, they comprise: (i) a very much sharper focus on (and understanding of) user needs, 
(ii)  greater  certainty  around  the  longer-term  plans  /  funding  for  the  service  and  (iii)  the  development  of 
downstream services. 

19 

 
 
The GMES initiative and the GIO programme under review here provide high levels of European Added Value.  
No  single  EU  country  could  have  created  a  similar  system  on  its  own,  partly  for  reasons  of  cost,  but  also  for 
reasons of willingness to invest.  National programmes are naturally very much more limited in their scope and 
only fulfil a limited number of the GMES GIO  functions and typically at lower levels of functionality. GMES 
offers higher levels of assured continuity of service, as compared with anything available nationally (even for the 
US): a full-scale, permanent screen of sensors. The satellites and sensors are very powerful and much better than 
any  other  systems  that  are  flying  currently,  whether  they  have  for  the  US,  Japan  or  Israel.    For  the  Earth 
Observation  industry,  the  added  value  was  seen  in  the  support  from  the  programme  in  terms  of  financial 
resources,  thus  ensuring  that  Europe’s  space  industry  remains  globally  competitive  and  maintains  its  cutting-
edge technological capabilities.  

Turning  to  the  question  of  the  sustainability  of  the  changes  brought  about  by  the  programme,  there  will  be  a 
legacy in terms of better policy choices or enhanced technological capabilities.  However, the various services 
are akin to any utility, which is to say they are valuable while they are running; turn them off and the decision 
making and operational processes they supported will quickly need to revert to alternative inputs or be degraded. 
For the manufacturers and technical services companies that have built the infrastructure and delivered much of 
the services component, the termination of the GIO programme without the progression to the new Copernicus 
Programme would have seen much of their competitive advantage (knowledge) competed away over a period of 
several  years.    The    supplier  survey  suggests  the  GIO  contracts  will  have  quite  a  lasting  effect,  conferring  a 
competitive advantage that people anticipate may last for five years or more.  The opportunities for value-added 
resellers and downstream businesses, however, have yet to be crystallised in any serious scale. 

 Some  lessons  could  be  learned  from  the  implementation  of  GIO  and  be  useful  to  accelerate  or  otherwise 
increase the social and economic benefits derived from this programme. 

  Closer  involvement  of  users  in  the  governance  of  the  overall  EO  system  and  in  particular  in  the 
definition of the individual service requirements to ensure they offer the right products and services that 
are  based  on  the  full  array  of  available  data  (on  this  last  point,  there  is  a  keen  interest  to  see  better 
treatment of in situ data)  

  Related  to  this  issue  of  user  orientation,  closer  cooperation  between  European,  national  and  regional 
bodies, to improve data access / data interoperability,and to optimise public investment levels overall 

  The individual services need to be more business-like, with clear strategies and measurable goals and 

performance metrics, which they can work towards and be judged against 

  More  effort  should  be  made  to  strengthen  links  between  Copernicus  and  GEOSS,  to  arrive  at  a  truly 

global system 

 

Improving the delineation between upstream and downstream services, and substantially increasing the 
level of support / types of incentives available to encourage the development of novel applications.  It is 
necessary  to    check  that  the  measures  taken  are  actually  supporting  the  involvement  of  smaller 
businesses, and the kinds of start-ups that can launch new industries and generate substantial numbers 
of jobs in Europe 

  Maintain support for developing new technologies, like micro-satellites (e.g. Skybox Imaging) to allow 
very many more satellites to be included within the system, providing more frequent imaging and much 
better coverage than is possible currently 

  Revisiting  the ground  segment,  to  ensure  appropriate  levels of  integration  of  satellite  and  in  situ data 
and our access to those data, leveraging the INSPIRE process.  This is a critical piece in the jigsaw that 
has been overlooked to some degree 

ANNEXES   

Table 1. Logframe for GMES Initial Operations programme, 2011-2013 

Level 
Global 

Objective 
Europe 2020 

Type 
Impact 

Description 
Contribute  to  the  realisation 
of the Europe 2020 strategy 

KPIs 

€530M  in  GSC  supplier  contracts 
supported  €630M  in  direct  and 
indirect  economic  activity  and 

20 

 
 
 
Level 

Objective 

Type 

Description 

KPIs 
employment within Europe 

100%  suppliers  stated 
GMES 
space 
improved 
competitiveness 

the 
component  had 
global 
their 

that 

Global 

Other 
policy needs 

EU 

Impact 

Contribute  to  the  successful 
implementation  of  other  EU 
policies 
(e.g.  environment 
and agricultural policies) 

General 

Establish 
permanent 
operations 

Outcome 

Establish  GMES  operations 
on a more permanent basis 

Specific 

Operate EMS  Output 

Operate EMS 

Specific 

Operate LMS  Output 

Operate LMS 

20%  of  GMES  services  users  are 
re-packaging 
to 
GMES  data  for  use  in  downstream 
applications 

/  adding  value 

25%  of  GMES  service  user  report 
downstream users 

78%  of  the  respondents  to  the 
GMES  consultation 
that 
GMES 
services  had  made  a 
‘significant’  or  ‘very  significant’ 
contribution to environment policy 

judged 

43%  of  survey  respondents  judged 
that  GMES 
a 
‘significant’  or  ‘very  significant’ 
contribution to agricultural policy 

had  made 

30%  of  survey  respondents  judged 
that  GMES 
a 
‘significant’  or  ‘very  significant’ 
contribution to security policy 

had  made 

had  made 

16%  of  survey  respondents  judged 
that  GMES 
a 
‘significant’  or  ‘very  significant’ 
contribution to transport policy 
A  new  regulation  establishing  the 
Earth 
Copernicus 
was 
monitoring 
implemented  (2013),  with  its  own 
budget  line  within  the  MFF  2014-
2020 

European 
system 

EMS  Rapid  Mapping  Products:  57 
activations and 632 maps produced 
in  the  2-year  period  to  the  end  of 
2013  (the  number  of  activations 
increased  year  on  year,  and 
increased further by around 25% in 
2014,  reaching  50  activations  (in 
line with the target in GMES work 
programme) 

EMS  Risk  and  Recovery:  7 
activations  and  71  maps  produced 
in  the  2-year  period  to  the  end  of 
2013 

Service was provided continuously, 
24/7/365 

LMS  pan  European  and 
local 
datasets: 32,337 page views, 19,400 
downloads,  2.1TB  data  for  the  12 
month  period  to  end  2012,  with  a 

21 

 
 
Level 

Objective 

Type 

Description 

Specific 

Ensure  access 
to EO data 

Output 

Specific 

Support  take-
up by users 

Output 

Specific 

Coordinate 
space 
non-space 

and 

Output 

Specific 

Support 
downstream 

Output 

Ensure  GMES  services  have 
access  to  necessary  EO  data 
from  other  EU  missions  and 
EO infrastructure 

Launch  measures  to  support 
take-up  of  services  by  users 
(e.g.  Creation  of  bespoke 
interfaces  for  different  user 
groups, 
Training, 
Communications,  Develop 
downstream sector) 
Ensure 
of 
GMES  services  access  to  in-
situ  data  (collected  by  third 
parties) 
Support  the  development  of 
the  downstream  sector 
in 
Europe 

coordination 

KPIs 
fourfold increase in usage by 2014 

LMS global: 416 registered users as 
at  the  end  of  2013Service  was 
provided continuously, 24/7/365 
44%  of  the  respondents  to  the 
GMES consultation judged that the 
GMES  programme  had  ensured, 
fully  or  in  large  part,  the  GMES 
services had access to all necessary 
EO data 
37%  of  the  respondents  to  the 
GMES consultation judged that the 
GMES  programme  had  launched 
sufficient  measures,  fully  or  in 
large  part,  to  ensure  the  take  up  of 
services by users 

33%  of  the  respondents  to  the 
GMES consultation judged that the 
GMES  programme  had  effectively 
coordination access to in situ data 
28%  of  the  respondents  to  the 
GMES consultation judged that the 
GMES  programme  had  effectively 
supported 
the  development  of 
downstream services / business 

Table 2- Ventilation of interviews and survey participants 

Category 

EU officials in DG GROW 

EU officials in JRC  

5 

6 

GMES Committee, Security Board, User Forum, GAC 

10 

The European Environment Agency 

The European Space Agency 

Relevant national and local officials15 

Representatives from Industry and SMEs 

GMES Users (including other relevant DGs) 

Service providers 

Other stakeholders (including MEPs) 

Total 

Table 3 - The overall results of the survey 

Objective 

Achievements 

7 

5 

24 

5 

19 

8 

5 

94 

Interviews 

Surveys 

Total 

Target 

- 

1 

4 

- 

- 

31  

16 

5 

11 

8 

76 

5 

10 

10 

5 

5 

50 

45 

20 

5 

7 

14 

7 

5 

55 

21 

24 

19 

13 

170 

150 

Creation 
permanent GMES 

of 

a 

The  GMES  space  component  completed  the  design  of  the  sentinels  architecture 
and developed the seven missions ahead of the launch of Sentinel 1 in 2014  

15 Including government departments, public agencies (e.g. regulator, coastguard, emergency services) and national space 
agencies 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Objective 

Industrial 
competitiveness 

Service provision 

Service users and use 

More  effective  user 
operations 

Improved policy 

Achievements 
Access to necessary EO data was assured, from contributing missions (e.g. ESA’s 
European  Remote  Sensing  satellites  and  ENVISAT;  EUMETSAT’s  MetOp 
meteorological  satellites;  France’s  SPOT  satellites;  Germany’s  TerraSAR-X;  the 
UK’s Disaster Monitoring Constellation; etc.) 

Space  industry:  230  suppliers  benefited  from  €530M  in  contracts  through  the 
GMES space component, including 48 SMEs 
Space industry: 50% of respondents  to  our  supplier  survey stated  that the GMES 
contracts had improved their competitiveness ‘to a large extent,’ with the balance 
(50%) suggesting it had improved their competitiveness ‘to some extent’ 
Space industry: 75% of respondents stated that the GMES contracts had improved 
their  technological  capability  ‘to  a  large  extent,’  with  the  balance  noting  it  had 
improved innovation-related capabilities ‘to some extent’ 
20%  of  GMES  users  indicated  they  were  using  GMES  data  for  the  provision 
downstream applications and services, around half of which are being charged 

Continuation of the EMS and LMS, both of which provided a continuous service 
throughout the period 2012-2013 
Further  enhancement  of  the  EMS  and  LMS  services,  and  in  particular  the  land 
service,  for  example,  with  the  geographical  extension  of  the  Corine  Land  Cover 
mapping activities, the further development of the Urban Atlas and the production 
of  high-resolution  layers  that  allow  the  visualisation  of  different  land  cover 
characteristics (e.g. artificial surfaces or agricultural areas) 
The development of the other four GMES core services was not progressed to the 
same  extent,  with  only  very  limited  advancement  around  the  climate  change  and 
security  services  reflecting  the  smallness  of  the  GIO  budget  and  the  very  real 
challenges for pan-European action on security  

EMS  Rapid  Mapping  Products:  57  activations  and  632  maps  produced  in  the 
period  to  the  end  of 2013 (the  number  of  activations  increased  year on year,  and 
increased further by around 25% in 2014) 
EMS Risk and Recovery: 7 activations and 71 maps produced in the period to the 
end of 2013 
LMS  pan  European  and  local  datasets:  32,337  page  views,  19,400  downloads, 
2.1TB data for the 12 month period to end 2012, with a fourfold increase in usage 
by 2014 
LMS global: 416 registered users as at the end of 2013 

LMS users: feedback from our GMES consultation suggests services users would 
consider  an  annual  subscription  of  €25,000  (weighted  average)  as  a  fair  price,  in 
recognition of the efficiency gains and improvements delivered by access to LMS 
products and data 
LMS  users:  From  our  GMES  consultation,  around  30%  of  users  were  able  to 
provide an estimate of the annual savings their organisations had made as a result 
of  using  the  LMS  services,  these  ranged  from  €10,000  to  €500,000  a  year  from 
productivity  gains  and  reduced  external  purchases,  with  a  median  of  around 
€100,000.  That suggests a benefit of c. €12M a year 
LMS  Services:  From  our  GMES  consultation,  around  13%  of  users  were  able  to 
provide an estimate of the additional annual income their organisations had made 
as a result of using the LMS services, these ranged from €50,000 to €700,000, with 
a median of around €500,000. That suggests a benefit of c. €26M a year 

78%  of  survey  respondents  judged  that  GMES  had  made  a  ‘significant’  or  ‘very 
significant’ contribution to environment policy 
43%  of  survey  respondents  judged  that  GMES  had  made  a  ‘significant’  or  ‘very 
significant’ contribution to agricultural policy 
40%  of  survey  respondents  judged  that  GMES  had  made  a  ‘significant’  or  ‘very 
significant’ contribution to emergency management 

23 

 
 
Objective 

Socio-economic 
impacts 

Achievements 
30%  of  survey  respondents  judged  that  GMES  had  made  a  ‘significant’  or  ‘very 
significant’ contribution to security policy 
16%  of  survey  respondents  judged  that  GMES  had  made  a  ‘significant’  or  ‘very 
significant’ contribution to transport policy 

The large investment in space infrastructure is estimated to have produced around 
€1 billion in private (industrial) returns and can be expected to yield a further €2 
billion in social benefits through spill overs 
50% of our respondents to the GMES consultation believe the provision of better 
and more timely data has reduced the social dislocation and environmental damage 
of various natural disasters (e.g. floods in Europe, which cost €5bn - €10bn a year) 

Overview of the GMES Emergency Management (EMS) and Land Monitoring Services (LMS) 

EMS – Rapid Mapping products 

  This  service  consists  of  the  on-demand  and  fast  provision  (hours-days)  of  geospatial  information.  This 
information  supports  emergency  management  activities  immediately  following  an  emergency  event.  The 
service  is  based  on  the  acquisition,  processing  and  analysis,  in  rapid  mode,  of  satellite  imagery and  other 
geospatial  raster  and  vector data  sources. The  products are  standardised  following  a set  of  parameters  the 
user can choose when requesting the service. 

 

 Reference maps 

Provide quick updated knowledge on territory and assets before the disaster 
Normally based on image captured as close as possible prior to the event 
Show selected topographical features of affected area 

  Delineation maps 

Provide assessment of event extent and evolution 
Based on post-disaster satellite images 
Examples: burnt area map, flooded area map, earthquake impact area map 

  Grading maps 

Provide assessment of damage grade and evolution 
Based on post-event satellite images 
Show extent, magnitude or damage grades specific to each disaster type 

Examples: earthquake grading map with the count of the number of destroyed/ damaged buildings in each cell of 
a regular grid (population, roads, hospitals, shelters, gathering areas, etc. may be included).  

The table below presents an overview of EMS Rapid Mapping and Risk and Recovery Mapping Activations.  It 
shows  there  were  some  64  EMS activations  in  the  period under  review  (2012  and  2013),  and  that service  use 
increased during the life of the GMES programmes (2012-2013) and has continued to increase subsequently.16  
The statistics show widespread use by the EC and EU member states.  Italy is revealed as the single most active 
user among member states.  The types of emergencies are also somewhat skewed, with floods dominating (41%).  
We also obtained a list of the 50 EMS European Flood Alert Service (EFAS) partners (of which 33 were partners 
in 2013), who are sent flood alert, flood watch and flash flood watch notifications. 

EMS activations (2012 to date) 

Activation date: 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

To date 

16  The  number  of  activations  is  only  a  proxy  for  the  extent  of  service  usage.    Each  EMS  activation  will  differ  in  scope, 
ranging from the provision of a small number of maps provided a few hours after the request has been issued and on to very 
much larger service requests that comprise many tens of delineation (extent of problem), reference (situation before incident) 
and grading maps (e.g. for appraisal of damage levels) and will be delivered over several days and with interaction to allow 
refinement and adaptation to user needs. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
EMS Rapid Mapping Activations 
EMS Risk and Recovery (R&R) Mapping Activations  1 

21 

36 
6 

44 
6 

18 
0 

119 
13 

EMS activations by location of user (2012 to date) 

User Location 
EC 
Italy 
Germany 
Spain 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
France 
Slovenia 
Croatia 
Greece 
Czech Republic 
Hungary 

Activations 
40 
17 
9 
9 
6 
6 
5 
5 
4 
4 
3 
3 

30% 
13% 
7% 
7% 
5% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 

EMS activations by event type (2012 to date) 

User Location 
Luxembourg 
Romania 
Sweden 
Bulgaria 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Austria 
FYR Macedonia 
Iceland 
International 
Ireland 
Norway 
Grand Total 

Activations 
3 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
132 

2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 

Event Type 
Flood 
Forest fire, wild fire 
Wind storm 
Industrial accident 
Earthquake 
Other 
Grand Total 

Activations 
54 
18 
12 
4 
3 
41 
132 

41% 
14% 
9% 
3% 
2% 
31% 

Number of EMS rapid map activations and maps produced 

Number of activations 
Number of maps produced 

2012 
21 
248 

2013 
36 
384 

Total  
57 
632 

EMS Risk and Recovery mapping activations and maps produced 

Number of activations 
Number of maps produced 
Source: Technopolis analysis of activation information on EMS website 

2012 
1 
0 

2013 
6 
71 

Total  
7 
71 

EMS risk and recovery mapping activations for EU civil protection exercises 

Code  Event 

Activation 
date 

Countries 
covered 

Request 
from 

Activation reason 

17/06/13 

Germany, 
Denmark 

EMSN
004 

EU  Civil 
Protection 
Exercise: 
TRIPLEX 
2013 

for 

German 
Federal 
Agency 
Technical 
Relief 
(THW), 
Germany 

"TRIPLEX" 

The  service  was  activated  to 
the  Civil  Protection 
support 
Exercise 
(from 
30.9.2013  to  3.10.2013).  The 
exercise  scenario  simulates  the 
flash  floods  in  border  region 
and 
between 

Denmark 

Type 
number 
maps 

and 
of 

Delineation 
maps 
(6 
detail  maps, 
1 
overview 
map) 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Code  Event 

Activation 
date 

Countries 
covered 

Request 
from 

Activation reason 

EMSN
005 

EU  Civil 
Protection 
Exercise: 
EU 
TARANIS 
2013 

21/06/13 

Austria, 
Germany 

Federal 
Ministry  of 
the  Interior, 
Austria 

EMSN
006 

Civil 
Protection 
Exercise: 
RESTART 
2013 

21/06/13 

Czech 
Republic, 
Poland 

19/07/13 

Italy 

EMSN
008 

EU  Civil 
Protection 
Exercise: 
TWIST 
2013 

Ministry  of 
Interior 
- 
General 
Directorate 
of 
Rescue 
of 
Service 
the  Czech 
Republic 

the  Fire 

Italian 
Presidency 
the 
of 
Council 
of 
Ministries  - 
Civil 
Protection 
Department 

flow 

refugee 

Germany. The floods generated 
into 
a 
neighbouring  countries  and  set 
up  of  temporary  camps.  The 
products  will  be  available  after 
the exercise is completed. 

Austria, 

An EU civil protection exercise, 
EU  TARANIS  2013,  held  in 
Salzburg, 
was 
completed on Saturday 29 June. 
The  cooperation  within  and 
among 
the  civil  protection 
teams  from  Austria,  Bulgaria, 
Romania,  Croatia,  the  Czech 
Republic,  the  Netherlands  and 
Germany was tested during this 
three day drill. According to the 
scenario,  Austria  was  hit  by 
heavy rains  and  the  consequent 
flooding  greatly  damaged  the 
infrastructure.  This 
triggered 
road,  train  and  plane  accidents, 
involved 
some 
chemical spills. 

of  which 

national 

The map products were used in 
the  framework  of  RESTART 
exercise, 
2013 
failure 
simulating  a  power 
associated 
severe 
to 
windstorm. The products served 
decision  makers  involved  in 
activities, 
coordination 
providing 
to 
orientation. 

support 

a 

The map products were used in 
the  framework of  TWIST  2013 
EU  co-funded  exercise,  whose 
reference scenario is a landslide 
detaching  from  the  submerged 
“Palinuro”  volcano  in  southern 
Thyrrenian 
the 
Sea 
consequent 
wave 
(tsunami)  on  the  coastal  areas 
Campania, 
of 
Basilicata and northern Calabria 
regions. 

southern 

tidal 

and 

Type 
number 
maps 

and 
of 

Delineation 
maps 
(3 
detail  map,  1 
overview 
map) 
Reference 
maps 
(3 
detail  map,  1 
overview 
map) 

Delineation 
maps 
(4 
detail  maps, 
2 
overview 
maps) 
Reference 
(5 
maps 
detail  maps, 
4 
overview 
maps) 

Delineation 
maps 
(6 
detail  maps, 
2 
overview 
maps) 
Reference 
maps 
(6 
detail  maps, 
2 
overview 
maps) 

EFAS services 

  Daily overview reports 

  Flood alerts 

  Flood  watches  -  for  forecasted  floods  up  to  10  days  in  advance  (real-time  info:  not  public,  for  national 

authorities and ERCC only) 

26 

 
 
 
  European overview of ongoing floods (public) 

Number of flood alerts and watches sent by EFAS 

Month Year 
Oct 2012 
Nov 2012 
Dec 2012 
Jan 2013 
Feb 2013 
Mar 2013 
Apr 2013 
Jun 2013 
Jul 2013 
Aug 2013 
Sep 2013 
Oct 2013 
Nov 2013 
Dec 2013 
Total  

Number of flood watches 
1 
2 
9 
6 
6 
4 
4 
22 
0 
0 
2 
6 
1 
15 
78 

Number of flood alerts 
3 
1 
2 
1 
0 
14 
8 
6 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
4 
40 

Cost-benefit  of Emergency applications 

Types of crises  Cost of crises / disasters 
Global  cost  of 
humanitarian 
crisis17 

the  global  economic  cost  of 
humanitarian  crises  was  estimated  at 
approximately €100 billion and is expected 
to double by 203018 

In  2010, 

By  2015,  the  number  of  people  worldwide, 
affected by disasters related to climate, will 
be 
(UK 
Humanitarian 
Response 
Review, 2011)19 

£375  million 

Emergency 

year” 

per 

Land slides20 

Economic  losses  resulting  from  landslides  in 

Europe: 

Spain: €170 million/year 
Sweden: €8 to 15 million/year 
Norway: €6.5 million/year 
€1,000 
Italy: 

million/year 

rehabilitation) 

(incl. 

Benefits of GMES 
Provide  up-to-date,  accurate  geographic 
logistics,  water  supply 
health 
demography, 

information  for 
infrastructures, 
facilities and the environment 

Help  to  identify  priority  areas  for  receiving 

humanitarian and financial aid 

Provide  essential  geographic  information  for 
remote  areas  where  this  is  absent  or  not 
current 

Satellite-based  landslide  monitoring  can  save 
up  to  10%  of  costs  up  to  2020  by:  reducing 
damage from landslides by better and routine 
monitoring  of  vulnerable  areas  minimising 
harm to the population. 

17www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue37_HumanitarianCrises_Sep2013.pd
f and Booz & Company, Cost Benefit Analysis for GMES, Final, 19th September 2011 
18 sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2301TST%20Issue%20Brief_CC&DRR_FINAL.pdf 
19 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67579/HERR.pdf 
20www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue13_Landslides_Sep2013.pdf 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Types of crises  Cost of crises / disasters 
Floods21 

Affected  people,  damage  and  economic 
losses in the EU in the period 1998 to 2009 
More than 1,100 fatalities 
More than 3 million people affected 
Cost of €60 billion in total 

In  2002,  damage  in  the  Elbe  basin  cost  €20 

billion alone 

During  the  2013  central  European  flood,  the 
Copernicus 
Emergency  Management 
Service  (GIO-EMS)  provided  53  reference 
maps  and  65  flood  delineation  maps  of 
areas  in  Germany, Hungary and  the  Czech 
Republic 

In  May  and  June  2013,  floods  in  Germany 
and neighbouring countries led to a loss of 
more than €12 billion 

Wildfires  cost  up  to  1%  of  GDP  in  most 
European countries, not to mention the loss 
of human life  

Every  year,  fires  in  the  European  Union 
reduce around 500,000 hectares of forest to 
ash 

Europe suffers over 50,000 forest fires every 

summer 

Globally, 80 to 100 tropical typhoons develop 
each  year.    The  Philippines  gets  struck  by 
around 20 storms and typhoons annually 
Typhoon  Haiyan  affected  around  14 
million  people  and  claimed  over  5200 
lives. The typhoon had wind speeds up to 
235  km/h,  causing  waves  heights  up  to 
15 metres 

Early  estimates  of  the  economic  cost  are 

about €11 billion 

Wildfires22 

Typhoons23 

Source: Technopolis desk research 

Benefits of GMES 
Preparation  for  floods,  their  mitigation  and 

analysis 
to 

Input 

flood  forecast  modelling, 

risk 

assessment and damage evaluation 

Direct 

integration 
management systems  

into  existing  disaster 

Rapid support to crisis management teams 

EO satellites have proven to be a vital tool in 
responding  to  wildfires  and  in  the  recovery 
period  following  an  event.  Fires  and  their 
extent  can  be  detected  in  near-real  time  with 
satellite  instruments  that  sense  heat.  Changes 
can  be  monitored  over  short  periods  of  time 
and  fire  maps  can  be  generated  within  few 
hours to provide an overview 

Rapid support for crisis management teams 
Tracking  and  forecasting  storm  strength  and 

landfall location 

Improving early warning of storms 
Preparation  for  storms,  their  mitigation  and 

analysis 

Land monitoring service 

Top 20 downloaded datasets for pan European, local and in situ component of LMS in 2012 and 2014 

Type of map 

CLC 2006 seamless vector 

CLC 2000 seamless vector 

2012 

9249 

5916 

2014 

13322 

5130 

21 www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue22_Flood_Sep2013.pdf 
22 www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue15_Fires_Sep2013.pdf and 
www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue39_Flood_Oct2013.pdf 
23www.copernicus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Copernicus_Briefs/Copernicus_Brief_Issue42_TyphoonHaiyan_Dec2013.pdf 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Type of map 

Urban Atlas 

Natura 2000 

AirBase – the European air quality database 

CLC 2000 – 2006 changes 

CLC 2006 raster data 

2012 

3487 

1658 

1312 

1230 

1121 

MS reporting (Art 7) under the (E--PRTR) Regulation 

850 

National emission – UNFCCC and EU GHG Mon.Mech.  821 

813 

782 

771 

733 

631 

617 

511 

505 

473 

465 

392 

CLC 2000 raster data 

EEA reference grids 

Digital elevation model of Europe 

Waterbase - Rivers 

Nationally designated areas (National – CDDA) 

Population density (disaggregated with CLC 2000) 

EU ETS data from CITL 

National emissions - LRTAP 

Waterbase – Groundwater 

Waterbase – Water Quantity 

Waterbase – Lakes 

Elevation map of Europe 

The European pollutant release and transfer register 

Monitoring of CO2 emissions from passenger cars 

World digital elevation model (ETOPO5) 

European catchments and Rivers network system  

Waterbase – uwwtd: urban waste water treatment 

Wise wfd database 
Source: data provided by EEA 

2014 

14580 

13708 

10121 

16167 

1984 

4240 

2358 

13443 

2886 

2671 

9635 

5129 

2513 

2404 

2355 

1976 

1898 

29