COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT INTERIM EVALUATION of Galileo and EGNOS programmes and evaluation of the European GNSS Agency Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes and on the performance of the European GNSS Agency
Date: 2017-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European GNSS Agency, innovation, international cooperation, provision of services, satellite communications, satellite navigation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.10.2017  SWD(2017) 346 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT INTERIM EVALUATION of Galileo and EGNOS programmes and evaluation of the European GNSS Agency Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes and on the performance of the European GNSS Agency {COM(2017) 616 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 3 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5 

3.  BACKGROUND TO Galileo, EGNOS and GSA ........................................................................... 6 

3.1.  Key objectives ......................................................................................................................... 6 

3.2.  Baseline ................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.3. 

Evaluation questions ................................................................................................................ 9 

3.4.  Method................................................................................................................................... 10 

3.4.1. 

Data collection ............................................................................................................... 10 

3.4.2. 

Challenges and limitations to the interim evaluation .................................................... 11 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY .................................................................................... 12 

5.  HOW RELEVANT ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES?...................................... 14 

6.  HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? ..................................... 14 

6.1.1. 

Galileo Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................. 15 

6.1.2. 

EGNOS Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................ 17 

6.1.3.  Market Trend Key Performance Indicators ................................................................... 19 

7.  HOW EFFICIENT ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? ....................................... 19 

7.1.1. 

EGNOS SPI and CPI ..................................................................................................... 20 

7.1.2. 

Galileo SPI and CPI ...................................................................................................... 21 

8.  HOW COHERENT ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES WITH OTHER  

EU POLICIES? ............................................................................................................................. 23 

9.  WHAT IS THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? ........... 23 

10. 

11. 

HOW IS THE EUROPEAN GNSS AGENCY PERFORMING? ............................................. 24 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 25 

Annex 1 – Acronyms and glossary ........................................................................................................ 26 

Annex 2 – Procedural information ........................................................................................................ 27 

Annex 3 – Intervention logic ................................................................................................................. 29 

Annex 4 – Detailed evaluation questions .............................................................................................. 30 

Annex 5 – Stakeholder consultation ...................................................................................................... 31 

Annex 6 – Methods and analytical models used in preparing the evaluation ....................................... 33 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Staff Working Document represents the mid-term review of Galileo and EGNOS, the EU 
satellite navigation programmes, and of the European GNSS Agency (GSA). The EU satellite 
navigation  programmes  were  designed  to  set  up  the  first  global  satellite  navigation  system 
under civilian control and autonomous from other existing systems, reinforce the resilience of 
the European economic infrastructure, maximise socio-economic benefits and ensure Europe's 
technical capability regarding complex large scale infrastructures. Together with Copernicus, 
Galileo  and  EGNOS  form  the  backbone  of  a  European  space  policy  intended  to  stimulate 
innovation and increase the competitiveness of European space industry beyond the limits of 
the  space  domain  and  drive  major  socio-economic  and  strategic  benefits  across  several  key 
industries and markets. 

The interim evaluation assesses the progress of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes towards 
their objectives over the period 2014-2016. It aims to inform stakeholders and public on the 
status  of  the  programmes,  to  contribute  to  improving  their  implementation  and  to  provide 
evidence-base for preparing the subsequent programming period. 

The  interim  evaluation  finds  that  the  original  rationale  for  EU  intervention  in  the  field  of 
satellite navigation and the objectives and challenges identified at the programme launch are 
still highly relevant also in light of current needs of the EU. The EU economy and society are 
increasingly  dependent  on  satellite  navigation  applications  and  services,  which  makes  a 
potential  disruption  in  the  provision  of  satellite  navigation  services  very  costly  in  terms  of 
revenues to business, and more importantly, in terms of human safety. The EU clearly needs 
to  maintain  and  operate  independent  satellite  navigation  programmes,  to  secure  the 
availability of those applications and services.  

Looking  at  effectiveness,  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  have  achieved  all  the 
milestones set for the period and progress is being made towards delivering on all programme 
implementation  objectives  set  for  2020.  The  Galileo  programme  has  recovered  the  initial 
delay in the launch of the satellites inherited from the previous period and increased in 2014 
with the wrong insertion in orbit of the first two Full Operational Capability (FOC) satellites. 
In addition, the deployment of the ground segment has been pursued and the initial provision 
of  the  Open  Service  (OS),  pilot  Public  Regulated  Service  (PRS)  and  Search  and  Rescue 
(SAR) contribution to COSPAS-SARSAT has been declared. The EGNOS service provision 
was improved, in particular through the declaration of the LPV-200 service and the provision 
of APV-I service over 98,98% of the targeted area (the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland). 
The  next  generations  of  the  EGNOS  and  Galileo  systems  are  being  prepared.  However,  a 
number  of  factors  may  influence  the  programmes'  effectiveness:  governance  complexity, 
security and technical aspects' implementation. 

Looking  at  efficiency,  as  of  end  of  2016,  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  were 
implemented within the budget limits set by the GNSS Regulation. While some data needed 
to calculate the Cost and Schedule Performance Indexes requested by the GNSS Regulation to 
monitor  the  efficiency  of  the  programme  implementation  were  not  available  for  Galileo 
deployment and exploitation, the programme remains within its budget limits. Implementation 
of  EGNOS  exploitation  remains  well  in  line  with  planning.  The  governance  of  the 
programmes  has  overall  contributed  to  the  efficient  implementation  and  the  progress  of  the 
programmes. Nevertheless, some limits to full efficiency of the programmes can be identified. 
Indeed, the European GNSS programmes governance is marked by a good transparency of the 
information  flow  among  the  main  stakeholders,  but  this  is  at  the  cost  of  a  heavy 

3 

 
 
administrative  burden,  affecting  the  efficiency  of  the  programmes.  Moreover,  the  current 
organisation of responsibilities and control processes is complex and not fully in line with the 
culture, competencies and structure of the key three governance actors.  

As for the security governance, the declaration of Galileo Initial Services and the overlap of 
the  deployment  and  exploitation  phases  have  posed  challenges  that  should  be  further 
addressed. In particular, the independence of operation of the organisations (EC, GSA, ESA) 
responsible for security requirement implementation and verification should be maintained. 

The Galileo and EGNOS programmes have a high level of internal coherence and coherence 
with other EU policies and GNSS systems. Substantial efforts have been undertaken to ensure 
complementarity  between  the  Horizon  2020  programme,  the  Navigation  Innovation  and 
Support Programme (NAVISP) and the Fundamental Elements initiative. The programmes are 
closely  aligned  with  the  Space  Strategy  for  Europe  and  the  Space  Industrial  Policy 
communications.  Initiatives  for  Galileo  and  EGNOS  compatibility  and  interoperability  with 
other GNSS systems have been mainly successful (e.g. ITU coordination agreements).  

The  implementation  at  EU  level  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  by  the  European 
Commission  has  brought  a  high  added  value  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  the 
Member  States  at  national,  regional  or  local  level.  The  size  and  complexity  of  the 
programmes require an implementation at EU level, as no viable alternative exists to ensure 
the appropriate return on investment.  

The  performance  of  the  GSA  has  been  positive  in  overall.  The  GSA  has  successfully 
achieved  important  objectives  for  the  progress  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  and  for 
the development of GNSS downstream markets through an effective implementation of both 
core tasks entrusted directly on the basis of the GNSS Regulation and tasks delegated by the 
Commission  through  contractual  arrangements.  The  Agency  has  achieved  most  of  its 
activities on time and within budget limits.  

4 

 
 
 
2. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  two 
European  Global  Navigation  Satellite  Systems  (GNSS)  programmes,  Galileo  and  EGNOS, 
and  the  evaluation  of  the  European  GNSS  Agency  (GSA).  The  interim  evaluation  of  the 
Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  is  required  by  Article  34  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1285/20131  (‘the  GNSS  Regulation’),  and  the  evaluation  of  the  European  GNSS  Agency  is 
required by Article 26 of the Regulation (EU) No 912/20102 (‘the GSA Regulation’). As the 
GNSS  Regulation  entrusts  the  GSA  with  a  key  role  in  the  implementation  of  the  European 
GNSS  programmes,  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  programmes  and  the  evaluation  of  the 
Agency are carried out together in line with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines3. 

The interim evaluation is an in-depth evidence-based assessment of the implementation of the 
Galileo and EGNOS programmes and of the performance of the European GNSS Agency in 
the  period  between  1  January  2014  and  31  December  2016.  The  evaluation  of  the 
implementation  of  the  programmes  concerns  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the 
programmes  were  met  in  terms  of  results  and  impacts,  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  use  or 
resources,  European  added  value,  continued  relevance  of  the  objectives  and  coherence  with 
other  EU  policies.  The  evaluation  of  the  performance  of  the  GSA  concerns  the  Agency's 
impact,  effectiveness,  smooth  running,  working  methods,  requirements  and  use  of  the 
resources entrusted to the GSA, application of the Agency’s policy on conflicts of interest as 
well as the independence and autonomy of the Security Accreditation Board (SAB).  

The interim evaluation aims to inform stakeholders and the public in general on the status of 
the programmes, to contribute to improve their implementation in the period 2017-2020 and 
to provide evidence to prepare the next programming period (beyond 2020).  

1 Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
implementation and exploitation of European satellite navigation systems and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 876/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. JO L 347/1 of 
20.12.2013. 

2 Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 setting up 
the  European  GNSS  Agency,  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1321/2004  on  the  establishment  of 
structures for the management of the European satellite radio navigation programmes and amending Regulation 
(EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. JO L 276/11 of 20.10.2010. 

3  European  Commission:  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  on  Evaluation 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/ug_chap6_en.htm  

and  Fitness  Checks. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
3.  BACKGROUND TO GALILEO, EGNOS AND GSA 

3.1.  Key objectives  

The European GNSS programmes, Galileo and EGNOS, fully owned by the  European 
Union, are fundamental for both European economy and security. Positioning and timing 
signals provided by satellite navigation systems are used in many critical areas of European 
economy such as mobile phone networks, in-car navigation, traffic management, power grid 
synchronisation or electronic trading. It is estimated that almost 11% of the EU economy is 
impacted  by  satellite  navigation  services4.  Therefore,  European  independence  in  satellite 
navigation is a primary driver behind the Galileo and EGNOS programmes. 

The Galileo and EGNOS programmes have four strategic objectives: 

(1) to  guarantee  continuous  and  autonomous  access  to  satellite  navigation  services 

for Europe interoperable with other GNSS systems, notably US GPS;  

(2) to ensure resilience of the European economic infrastructure;  
(3) to maximise socio-economic benefits for European economy and society; 
(4) to build Europe’s technical capacity to develop, deploy and operate complex large-

scale space infrastructures.  

Both  Galileo  and  EGNOS  have  constantly  been  reaffirmed  by  the  Council  of  the  European 
Union  and  the  European  Parliament  as  key  strategic  programmes  for  Europe5.  Recently, the 
Space  Strategy  for  Europe6  confirmed  the  commitment  of  the  Commission  to  ensure 
continuity, sustainability and evolution of the Union’s space programmes.  

Galileo  is  the  European  global  navigation  satellite  system  under  civilian  control, 
providing  a  range  of  positioning,  navigation  and  timing  services  to  users  worldwide, 
compatible  and  interoperable  with  other  GNSS  systems,  like  GPS.  The  Galileo  programme 
was  launched  in  1999,  started  its  deployment  phase  in  2014  and  its  exploitation  phase  in 
December 2016, providing three Initial Services: the Open Service (OS), the Public Regulated 
Service  (PRS),  and  the  Search  And  Rescue  (SAR)  service.  The  objective  of  the  Galileo 
programme is to complete the deployment of the infrastructure and to reach Full Operational 
Capability (FOC) by 2020. 

4  Analysis of GNSS impact on the EU Economy, November 2016. Study conducted by VVA, GMV, Kontor 

Qwentes and LS. 

5 SEC(2011)1447.Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, p.15. 

6 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Space  Strategy  for  Europe.  COM(2016)  705  final. 
26.10.2016. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
 
Summary Box: Galileo infrastructure, services and implementation phases 

Galileo infrastructure: 
•  Space  segment:  generates  and  transmits  Galileo  signals  with  a  specific  Galileo  signal  structure,  as 
well as stores and retransmits the navigation message sent by the Control Centres. The space segment 
is planned to comprise 30 satellites in total: 24 operational satellites plus 6 spare satellites. 
•  Ground  segment:  monitors  the  satellites  and  their  functioning,  generates  the  navigation  data  to  be 
sent to end users. It is composed of various stations and control centres. 
• User segment: is composed of Galileo receivers, whose main function is to receive Galileo signals, 
compute coordinates and provide a very accurate time. 

Galileo services: 
•  Open  Service  (OS)  is  free  of  charge  to  the  users,  providing  positioning  and  synchronisation 
information  intended  mainly  for  high-volume  satellite  navigation  applications  for  mass-market 
applications. 
• Contribution by the means of Galileo OS to integrity-monitoring services aimed at users of safety-of-
life applications in compliance with international standards. 
• Commercial Service (CS) for the development of applications for professional or commercial use by 
means  of  improved  performance  and  data  with  greater  added  value  than  those  obtained  through  the 
OS. 
• Public Regulated Service (PRS) restricted to government-authorised users, for sensitive applications 
which require a high level of service continuity. 
• Search and Rescue (SAR) service to locate people in distress, by detecting distress signals transmitted 
by beacons and relaying messages to them. This service is Europe's contribution to the international 
search-and-rescue activities, known as COSPAS-SARSAT. 

Galileo implementation phases: 
• 1999-2001: definition phase to design the structure of the system and its elements. 
• 2002-2013: development phase aimed at reaching In Orbit Validation (IOV) of the Galileo system. It 
verified  and  validated  the  system  with  four  satellites  and  first  ground  infrastructure  prior  to  the  full 
deployment of its infrastructure.  
•  2014-2020:  deployment  phase  aims  at  completing  the  infrastructure  and  reaching  Full  Operational 
Capability (FOC) by 2020. This phase  is ongoing and it includes the deployment  of all 30  satellites 
and the upgrade of ground infrastructure needed for FOC. 
• 2016-2020: exploitation phase started in December 2016 and is running in parallel to the deployment 
phase  until  2020.  This  phase  consists  of  service  provision,  management  and  operation  of  the  space, 
ground and user segments, maintenance of infrastructure and constant update of the system. 

The  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  Service  (EGNOS)  is  the  European 
regional  Space-Based  Augmentation  System  (SBAS)  used  for  monitoring  and  correcting 
open signals emitted by existing global navigation satellite systems, like GPS or Galileo, over 
European territory. EGNOS checks the integrity of the information received, and provides an 
alarm  in  case  the  position  information  is  unreliable.  This  is  fundamental  for  safety  critical 
applications such as flying aircraft. The EGNOS programme has completed the deployment of 
its  infrastructure  and  is  operational  since  2009,  providing  three  services:  the  Open  Service 
(OS), the Safety-of-Life (SoL) service and the EGNOS Data Access Service (EDAS). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary Box: EGNOS infrastructure and services 

EGNOS infrastructure: 
•  Space  segment:  broadcasts  corrections  and  integrity  information  for  other  GNSS  (GPS  or  Galileo) 
satellites.  It  is  composed  of  three  geostationary  satellites  over  Europe,  each  of  them  carrying  one 
communication transponder.  
• Ground segment: receives signals from the GNSS satellites and corrects the data to send back to the 
satellite transponders. It is composed of various stations and control centres. 
• User segment: is composed of EGNOS receivers, which are similar to GPS receivers but  equipped 
with a special software that allows the receiver to lock onto the code used by the EGNOS satellites and 
compute the EGNOS corrections to the GPS/Galileo signals. 

EGNOS services: 
•  Open  Service  (OS):  free  of  charge  to  users,  provides  positioning  and  synchronisation  information 
intended mainly for high-volume satellite navigation applications in the area covered by the EGNOS 
system such as road-tolling or agriculture.  
•  Safety-of-Life  (SoL)  service:  for  safety  critical  transport  applications,  such  as  civil  aviation  and 
maritime. It provides enhanced and guaranteed performance and features an integrity warning system.  
• EGNOS Data Access Service (EDAS): for enhanced applications, it provides terrestrial commercial 
data service and is offered on a controlled access basis (e.g. through Internet or mobile phones). 

The European Union (EU) is fully financing the Galileo and EGNOS programmes and is 
the owner of all assets developed under these programmes. The European Commission (EC), 
on behalf of the EU, is responsible for the management and the security of both Galileo and 
EGNOS programmes. The deployment of the Galileo programme is entrusted to the European 
Space  Agency  (ESA).  The  exploitation  of  both  Galileo  and  EGNOS  is  entrusted  to  the 
European GNSS Agency (GSA)7, and Working Arrangements were concluded between ESA 
and the GSA in 2015 and 2016. The key tasks of ESA and the GSA are: 

•  European Space Agency: in charge of design, procurement and deployment of Galileo 
infrastructure,  system  operations  and  signal  provision  during  deployment  phases, 
maintenance  of  system  infrastructure  and  R&D  for  the  evolution  of  the  systems, 
technical support to exploitation. 

•  European  GNSS  Agency:  in  charge  of  the  system  exploitation,  operational  activities 
including  systems  infrastructure  management,  ensuring  security  accreditation  of  the 
European  GNSS  systems  through  the  SAB,  operation  of  the  Galileo  Security 
Monitoring  Centre  (GSMC),  acting  as  a  competent  designated  PRS  authority, 
promoting and marketing of the Galileo and EGNOS services. 

Annex 3 shows the intervention logic of the European GNSS programmes for the purpose of 
this interim evaluation. It describes the links between the problems to be tackled, the needs to 
be fulfilled, the objectives to be achieved and the expected impacts on European society and 
economy.  

7  In  line  with  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  amended  in  2016  and  the  corresponding  Delegation 
Agreements. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.2.  Baseline  

The  baseline  for  the interim  evaluation  is  the status  of  the programmes  at the  beginning  of 
2014.  

The Galileo system was  verified  and validated in  orbit  with four satellites  and  first  ground 
infrastructure (development phase) at the end of 2013. Then, in 2014, the Galileo programme 
started the full deployment of its infrastructure, which is expected to be completed by 2020. In 
parallel to the deployment phase, the exploitation phase with the provision of Galileo Initial 
Services was expected to start gradually between 2014 and 2015. 

The  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  Galileo  programme  marked  a  relevant  change  in 
the programme governance. ESA was in charge of Galileo's deployment phase, but with the 
progress with the deployment of the system and the phasing-in of the exploitation phase, ESA 
would  gradually  hand  over  to  the  GSA  the  responsibilities  for  system  maintenance, 
improvement and R&D activities related to system and infrastructure evolution. These tasks 
were  reflected  in  Delegation  Agreements  between  EC/GSA  and  EC/ESA  and  Working 
Arrangements between ESA and the GSA that were under preparation at that time. 

At the end of 2013, the market uptake of Galileo was entrusted to the GSA as a core task. The 
main objectives for Galileo market uptake in the period 2014-2016 were to implement the EC 
GNSS Application Action Plan, to elaborate regulatory measures to secure the market uptake 
of Galileo services, and to manage and monitor Horizon 2020 activities. 

The  EGNOS  system  was  already  fully  operational  at  the  beginning  of  2014.  Ensuring  the 
provision  of  EGNOS  services,  their  evolution  and  security  were  the  key  stakes.  Moreover, 
EGNOS services were expected to be reinforced by the enlargement of the EGNOS coverage 
in  the  EU-28  area  and  beyond.  For  this  purpose,  negotiations  with  neighbouring  and  third 
countries  were  planned.  As  for  EGNOS  exploitation  phase,  the  GSA  has  been  in  charge  of 
service provision.   

At  the  end  of  2013,  the  market  uptake  of  EGNOS  had  well  progressed.  More  than  70%  of 
receiver  models  on  the  market  were  SBAS  capable,  with  SBAS  comprising  the  American 
Wide  Area  Augmentation  System  (WAAS),  EGNOS  and  the  Japanese  Multi-functional 
Satellite Augmentation System (MSAS)8.  

The  GNSS  Regulation  allocated  a  financial  envelope  of  EUR  7  071,  73  million  for  the 
implementation  of  the  programmes  in  the  period  2014-2020.  This  represented  a  very 
substantial  commitment  by  the  EU,  in  addition  to  more  than  EUR  3  500  million  already 
invested in the previous MFF (2007-2013)9. 

3.3.  Evaluation questions 

In  line  with  the  'Better  Regulation'  guidelines,  this  interim  evaluation  addresses  questions, 
which are structured around the five evaluation criteria:  

•  Relevance: assessment of whether the objectives of the European GNSS programmes 

are still relevant and how well they still match the current needs and problems;  

8 GSA: GNSS Market Report, Issue 3, p.8. 

9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the revision of 
the multiannual financial framework (2007-2013). COM(2009)171 final, 8.4.2009. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
 
•  Effectiveness:  how  successful  European  GNSS  programmes  have  been  in  achieving 

or progressing towards their objectives;  

•  Efficiency:  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  by  European  GNSS 

programmes and the benefits they are generating;  

•  Coherence: to what extent the European GNSS programmes were coherent with other 

EU policies; 

•  EU  added  value:  assessment  of  the  value  resulting  from  European  GNSS 

programmes. 

In  addition,  in  line  with  the  GSA  Regulation,  there  are  specific  questions  on  the  GSA 
evaluation: assessment of the GSA’s performance and impact. Detailed evaluation questions 
are provided in Annex 4. 

3.4.  Method  

The interim evaluation is based on the comparison of several data sources contextualised 
with  input  from  the  stakeholder  consultation.  The  interim  evaluation  is  based  on  an 
evaluation  study  contracted  by  the  European  Commission  to  an  external  consultant  (PwC 
France)  and  support  from  the  Inter-Service  Group  (ISG)  comprising  of  other  Commission 
services.  The  preparatory  work  for  the  interim  evaluation  started  in  July  2016,  the  ISG 
validated the terms  of reference for an external evaluation study and the external contractor 
started to work in November 2016.  

The  external  consultant  elaborated  an  evaluation  framework  which  contains  is  structured 
around the five evaluation criteria (as described in Chapter 3.3 Evaluation Questions), type of 
data collection and source of the data.  This evaluation framework was deemed as appropriate 
by the ISG to obtain all necessary information to reply to all evaluation questions. 

3.4.1.  Data collection  

The  stakeholder  consultation  is  primarily  based  on  a  stakeholder  survey  of  key  actors 
(policy  makers,  industry,  user  associations)  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  during 
February  and  March  2017  by  two  different  methods:  face-to-face/telephone  interviews  and 
targeted  consultation  by  means  of  web  questionnaires.  A  total  of  97  stakeholders  were 
consulted: 71 in direct interviews, 25 via web questionnaires and 2 via written contributions.  

The  face-to-face/telephone  interviews  method  implied  direct  interactions  with  selected 
stakeholders  in  the  form  of  semi-structured  interviews.  For  these  interviews,  12  different 
interview guidelines were developed, tailored to specific categories of stakeholders. Targeted 
consultation  implied  distribution  of  web  questionnaires  to  a  large  number  of  stakeholders. 
The questions were general so that all types of stakeholders with interest in the programmes 
could answer them. In addition to a general questionnaire, a specific questionnaire dedicated 
to EGNOS civil aviation stakeholders (i.e. airports and airlines) was prepared and distributed 
to collect information on EGNOS service performance. 

Another source of stakeholders’ input was coming from dedicated meetings on the interim 
evaluation,  for  example  the  GSA  Administrative  Board  on  26  March  2017,  the  European 
GNSS  Programmes  Committee  on  26  April  2017  and  a  meeting  with  representatives  of  the 
downstream industry on 11 May 2017.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For this interim evaluation derogation from the standard open public stakeholder consultation 
was  granted  as  an  online  public  consultation  on  the  European  Space  Strategy  was 
conducted earlier in 2016. In this public consultation, specific questions were asked related to 
market  uptake  of  the  services  and  data  generated  from  Galileo  and  EGNOS  by  current  and 
future users, as well as the evolution of these programmes in the future. The responses to the 
questions concerning the Galileo and EGNOS programme have been taken into consideration 
in the formulation of the answers to the evaluation questions (see Annexes 5 and 6 for more 
details).  

The secondary data collection involved reviewing various documents and literature relevant 
for  the  evaluation.  Among  the  key  data  sources  of  the  desk  research  were  the  Galileo  and 
EGNOS  monitoring  reports10,  in-depth  market  analysis  carried  out  by  the  GSA11,  relevant 
policy  papers  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  European  Space  Policy  Institute,  the 
GSA readiness review carried out by the Commission, together with legal documents12.  

3.4.2.  Challenges and limitations to the interim evaluation 

The  results  presented  in  the  mid-term  review  are  based  on  solid  evidence  and  are 
robust.  The  stakeholder  consultation  covers  the  full  spectrum  of  the  value  chain,  with  all 
stakeholder  categories  represented.  Even  though  some  parts  of  the  value  chain  had  a  lower 
number  of  respondents,  it  is  compensated  by  the  fact  that  the  major  players  were  all 
interviewed.  

However, three factors can be identified as limitations in the data collection: 

1.  Limited  feedback  from  web-questionnaires:  Only  25  replies  were  collected  from  the 
online questionnaire. This was linked to the fact that the web-questionnaires circulated 
during  a  short  period  (6  weeks).  To  compensate  the  low  rate  feedback,  additional 
interviews were carried out.  

2.  Unavailability  of  earned  value  management  data  for  the  Galileo  deployment  and 
exploitation  phases:  This  data  is  needed  to  calculate  the  Schedule  Performance 
Indexes (SPI) and Cost Performance Indexes (CPI). It has not been released by ESA 
and industry. As only part of the data set was available, it was not possible to calculate 
the SPI and CPI for the Galileo programme.  

3.  Benefits of the Galileo programme: the interim evaluation was carried out after three 
years  of  the  seven  years  duration  of  the  programmes.  While  EGNOS  is  operational 
and is providing services and tangible benefits for many years, the Galileo programme 
has  entered  into  its  operational  phase  only  at  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period. 
Therefore, even if the market uptake of Galileo services is gradually growing, the use 
of  Galileo  services  will  be  much  more  evident  after  2-3  years  of  operations.  To 
provide  information  on  initial  benefits  of  Galileo  services,  the  findings  of  the  GSA 
market report especially in the area of Galileo-enabled chipsets and devices were used.  

These limitations were taken into account in formulation of the findings and conclusions. 

10 Quarterly and annual reports of the Commission, ESA and the GSA. 

11 GNSS Market Reports 2015 and 2017, GNSS User Technology Report. 

12  GNSS  and  GSA  Regulations,  Commission  Implementing  Decisions,  Delegation  Agreements,  Working 
Arrangements, etc. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
4. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

In the  last three years, the  Galileo programme made  significant  progress. In  particular, 
the Galileo programme has succeeded in the deployment of the space segment with a total of 
14  satellites  launched  in  the  evaluation  period  (in  addition  to  the  4  satellites  launched  in 
2011).  In  2014  two  satellites  were  launched  into  an  incorrect  orbit,  which  caused  that  the 
Galileo  launches  were  put  on  hold  until  March  2015.  The  launch  schedule  was  then 
accelerated with  additional  launch in  2016  and  the  launch  of  four  satellites  on  the Ariane-5 
launcher  in  November  2016.  The  procurement  of  the  remaining  satellites  (to  complete  the 
constellation  of  24  satellites  plus  six  in  orbit  spares),  planned  for  2016,  was  postponed  to 
2017.  In  parallel,  the  deployment  of  the  ground  segment  has  continued  on  track  with  the 
deployment  of  major  elements  (e.g.  entry  into  operation  of  the  Galileo  Security  Monitoring 
Centre  at  the  end  of  2016).  The  deployment  of  the  infrastructure  allowed  for  a  major  step 
forward in the programme - the declaration of the Galileo Initial Services in December 2016. 
With  this  declaration,  Galileo  programme  moved  into  exploitation  phase,  providing  three 
Initial Services (OS, SAR and PRS).  

To  reinforce  Galileo  market  uptake,  important  initiatives  were  conducted  to  showcase  the 
benefits of the Galileo services to the downstream industry, such as a  conference promoting 
European  Space  solutions  for  sustainable  transport  held  in  Prague  in  June  2014.  The  EU 
Space Strategy adopted in October 2016 emphasized the need to reinforce activities aiming at 
introducing  the  use  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  services  in  sectorial  policies.  For  instance,  the 
eCall in-vehicle system established in April 2015 will be using Galileo/EGNOS services and 
thus  contribute  to  the  market  uptake  of  Galileo/EGNOS  in  the  automotive  sector.  Already 
today,  leading  GNSS  companies  representing  more  than  95%  of  the  GNSS  chipset  market 
produce Galileo-ready chips13. 

The  EGNOS  programme  also  made  significant  progress  in  the  period  2014-2016.  The 
EGNOS infrastructure was reinforced with an additional transmitter on the Astra-5B satellite 
launched in March 2014 and with the deployment of additional ground stations.  

Also,  the  EGNOS  services  were  continuously  provided  over  the  98,98%  of  the  EU-28 
territory,  and  even  improved  in  aviation,  with  the  declaration  of  the  new  LPV-200  service 
(Localizer  Performance  with  Vertical  Guidance)  in  September  2015.  In  addition,  the  last 
version  of  the  EGNOS  system  was  qualified  and  has  been  operational,  allowing  for 
improvement  of  GPS  satellites  monitoring.  However,  the  extension  of  the  EGNOS  service 
coverage to the remaining 1.02% of the EU-28 territory remains an objective (eastern part of 
Cyprus, the Azores, and the northern parts of Norway and Finland).  

EGNOS market uptake has been proceeding at different paths according to the sectors. One 
key  sector  with  a  large  number  of  EGNOS  users  is  aviation:  more  than  230  airports  in  20 
countries  are  using  EGNOS  landing  approach  procedures  at  the  end  of  201614.  The  second 
key  area  of  EGNOS  use  is  agriculture,  to  increase  efficiency  and  productivity  thanks  to 
precision farming (e.g. more precise use of fertilizers or herbicides). In other sectors, such as 
maritime, transport and rail, the EGNOS market uptake is slower. 

13 GSA: GNSS market Report, Issue 5 (2017), p. 7. 
14 
GNSS 
https://www.gsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2016_gsa_summary_report.pdf 

Summary 

European 

Agency: 

of 

Achievements 

in 

2016, 

p. 

6. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
The  governance  scheme  for  Galileo  and  EGNOS  has  been  progressively  implemented 
during  the  period  2014-2016.  Delegation  Agreements  were  concluded  between  the 
Commission and ESA on the Galileo deployment phase, and between the Commission and the 
GSA on Galileo and EGNOS exploitation phases. Working Arrangements between the GSA 
and ESA for both Galileo and EGNOS programmes were concluded. The role of the GSA in 
the operational management of the programmes has gradually increased.  

The  Commission  entrusted  budget  to  ESA  and  the  GSA  to  carry  out  the  deployment  and 
exploitation  tasks  set  in  the  Delegation  Agreements,  through  Commission  Implementing 
Decisions (CID) (see table 1 below).  

Table  1:  Overview  of  the  variation  of  the  budget  allocated  to  ESA  and  the  GSA  over  the 
period 2014-2016 

Entrusted 
entity 

Activity 

ESA 

GSA 

GSA 

Galileo 
deployment 
Galileo 
exploitation 
EGNOS 
exploitation 

Budget allocated 
under the 2014 
CID15 
(EUR million) 

Budget allocated 
under the 2015 
CID16 (EUR 
million) 

Budget allocated 
under the 2016 
CID17 (EUR 
million) 

Variation 
(EUR 
million) 

1 770 

490 

1 450 

1 770 

790 

1 450 

2 485 

2 400 

1 552 

+ 715 

+ 1 910 

+ 102 

The  security  governance  of  the  programmes  was  reinforced  with  the  Council  Decision 
2014/496/CFSP  that  enhanced  the  process  of  security  threat  management  under  emergency 
circumstances.  Moreover,  the  Common  Minimum  Standards  for  access  to  the  Public 
Regulated  Service  were  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  September  2015.  In  addition,  the 
Galileo Security Monitoring Centre became operational at the end of 2016. 

15  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  entrusting  budget  implementation  tasks  to  the  European  GNSS 
Agency  and  the  European  Space  Agency  linked  to  the  deployment  and  exploitation  of  the  European  GNSS 
Systems (EGNOS and Galileo). C(2014)809/F1. 14.02.2014. 

16  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  entrusting  budget  implementation  tasks  to  the  European  GNSS 
Agency  and  the  European  Space  Agency  linked  to  the  deployment  and  exploitation  of  the  European  GNSS 
Systems (EGNOS and Galileo). C(2015) 7898 final. 18.11.2015. 

17  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  entrusting  budget  implementation  tasks  to  the  European  GNSS 
Agency  and  the  European  Space  Agency  linked  to  the  deployment  and  exploitation  of  the  European  GNSS 
Systems (EGNOS and Galileo). C(2016) 4321 final. 13.07.2016. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
5.  HOW RELEVANT ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? 

Ensuring  Europe’s  autonomy  in  satellite  navigation  and  maximising  socio-economic 
benefits from Galileo and EGNOS remain key objectives for the EU. The importance of 
European  satellite  navigation  services  for  European  economy  and  security  are  clearly 
recognised  by  all  stakeholders.  The  deployment  and  operations  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
systems need to continue in the future, as outlined in the Space Strategy for Europe. The EU 
clearly needs to maintain and operate independent satellite navigation programmes to secure 
the  availability  of  those  applications  and  services  ensuring  global  coverage,  including  the 
circumpolar area.  In addition to ensuring Europe’s autonomy in critical technology, satellite 
navigation  services  generate  socio-economic  benefits  and  contribute  to  strengthening  EU’s 
science and knowledge base. Compatibility and interoperability with other GNSS systems, in 
particular  with  the  GPS  system,  need  to  be  pursued  to  provide  users with  greater  reliability 
and precision. 

6.  HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? 

6.1. Galileo infrastructure deployment and services provision 

The Galileo programme has achieved its key objective set out for the evaluation period - 
the system was declared operational and is providing Initial Services. This reassured both 
industry  players  to  continue  investing  into  Galileo  enabled  products,  and  the  political 
stakeholders  that  Galileo  is  progressing  at  good  pace  toward  Full  Operational  Capability 
(FOC)  (especially  with  respect  to  other  competing  GNSS  systems).  The  Declaration  of  the 
Initial Services provided an excellent opportunity to raise awareness about Galileo beyond the 
space community, thanks to the global outreach.  

In the evaluation period, the space segment of Galileo was enhanced with 14 additional 
satellites.  This  was  one  of  the  enablers  for  the  Initial  Services  declaration.  Despite  the 
delays  in  the  launch  schedule,  the  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  have  positively 
perceived the progress of the space segment as a major programme achievement. Stakeholders 
indicated  a  high  level  of  satisfaction  concerning  the  way  the  programme  has  addressed  the 
delays of the launch schedule. Some uncertainties persist about when the programme would 
complete  launch  activities.  The  procurement  of  the  remaining  satellites,  planned  to  be 
awarded in 2016, was postponed to 2017. However, the programme seems to be back on track 
to meet the 2020 FOC objective.  

Delays in the deployment schedule were created after two Galileo satellites were launched 
into  an  incorrect  orbit  in  August  2014,  which  generated  major  difficulties  and  led  to  the 
postponement  of  the  Galileo  Initial  Services  declaration,  planned  in  2015,  to  2016.  The 
satellites  have  been  repositioned  into  a  more  convenient  orbit  and  have  been  used  for  the 
provision  of  the  Galileo  Search  And  Rescue  service,  but  their  use  for  navigation  and 
positioning  purposes  is  subject  to  ongoing  testing.  To  complete  the  technical  investigation, 
further  launches  were  then  put  on  hold  until  March  2015.  Since  March  2015  however,  the 
launch  schedule  was  accelerated  and  culminated  with  the  launch  of  four  Galileo  satellites 
together on an Ariane 5 rocket in November 2016, accumulating a two year delay with respect 
to the planned target date of end 2014. Usage of Ariane 5 launcher is also seen as a major 
achievement  reached  during  the  evaluation  period,  especially  among  the  European  GNSS 
committee  representatives  and  upstream  industry  representatives,  who  see  a  great  value  in 
utilisation  of  the  European  launcher.  Indeed,  the  qualification  and  utilisation  of  Ariane  5  is 
perceived as a positive factor despite the fact that it was delayed by two years. 

14 

 
 
 
In  addition,  the  progress  in  the  deployment  of  the  ground  segment  and  the  entry  into 
operation  of  the  Galileo  Security  Monitoring  Centre  (GSMC)  were 
important 
achievements  that  were  conditional  to  the  provision  of  the  Galileo  Initial  Services.  In 
particular, the GSMC operations are considered as an important achievement for ensuring the 
security of the system. 

6.1.1.  Galileo Key Performance Indicators 

The key performance indicators related to the Galileo infrastructure deployment and service 
levels are required by Article 34 (2) of the GNSS Regulation.  

On  31  December  2016,  there  were  18  Galileo  satellites  in  orbit.  However,  not  all  of  them 
were operational. One satellite has not been usable since May 2014 due to a technical issue. 
The two satellites launched in August 2014 into an incorrect orbit have been used only for the 
provision  of  the  SAR  service  and  their  use  for  navigation  and  positioning  purposes  was 
subject  to  ongoing  testing.  Also,  the  last  4  satellites  launched  in  November  2016  were 
undergoing  in-orbit  testing.  Thus,  out  of  the  18  satellites  in  orbit,  11  were  operational  and 
usable to provide Galileo services since December 2016.  

Indicator 1: Galileo infrastructure deployment: Cumulative number of operational satellites 

Baseline 
2013 

4 

Milestones foreseen 
2015 
12 
Actual results 
9 

2014 
6 

3 

2016 
16 

30 

11 

Target 2020 

Indicator 2: Galileo infrastructure deployment: Ground infrastructure elements availability 

2016 

Target 2020 

Baseline 

IOV initial 
configuration in 
June 2011 

2014 

IOV final 
configuration   

Milestones foreseen 
2015 
Ground 
Segment 
Version 2.0 
Actual results 
GMS 
Version 
2.1/GCS 
2.0 

System 
Build 1.5.0  

SB 1.5.0 

System Build 2.0 

Target 2020 

5 services 

Indicator 3: Galileo services provision: Number of operational services 

Baseline 

Number of services 
implemented 

Milestones foreseen 
2015 
3 
Actual results 
0 

2014 
0 

0 

2016 
3 

3 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. EGNOS infrastructure deployment and services provision 

The  implementation  of  the  EGNOS  programme  progressed  well.  The  declaration  of  the 
LPV-200 service in aviation in September 2015 emerged from stakeholder consultation as a 
major achievement for EGNOS during the evaluation period.  Thanks to this declaration, the 
EGNOS system now provides the highest quality guided approach services available today to 
airline  and  aerodrome  operators,  with  an  increase  in  flight  and  landing  safety,  and  benefits 
related to the optimization of fuel consumption.  

Stakeholders using EGNOS expressed an extremely high level of satisfaction concerning the 
maturity of the EGNOS system and the overall performance of the services. About half of the 
consulted stakeholders active in the downstream of the EGNOS value chain have expressed a 
level  of  satisfaction  ranging  from  good  to  excellent,  about  a  quarter  have  considered  the 
service provision as fair, no one has considered the service provision as poor or very poor18. 

Some Member States (MS) expressed dissatisfaction and concern about the incomplete 
coverage of EU-28 with EGNOS services. The EGNOS system covers the entirety of the EU 
Member States, but the quality of the signal is not homogeneous yet. Currently 98,98% of the 
EU  MS,  Norway  and  Switzerland  land  mass  is  covered  by  APV-I  (Approach  with  Vertical 
Guidance) services. The majority of the MS are covered with a signal enabling the provision 
of  LPV-200  (Localizer  Performance  with  Vertical  Guidance)  services,  while  in  other  MS  it 
has  not  been  possible  to  declare  the  services  yet.  More  precisely,  the  EGNOS  services  are 
available  mainly  in  the  western  and  central  regions  of  Europe,  while  there  are  some 
limitations in the northern (e.g. Finland), southern (e.g. Madeira, Canary Islands, Azores) and 
eastern (e.g. Cyprus, Romania) regions. This is also visible when looking at the distribution 
map  of  declared  EGNOS  based  approach  procedures  in  Europe:  the  majority  of  the 
procedures are concentrated in aerodromes in the western and central European regions. Thus, 
the  priority  for  EGNOS  remains  to  cover  the  entire  territories  of  EU-28  with  EGNOS 
services. 

In addition, consulted system users expressed their concerns about the obsolescence and 
refurbishment of the current version of the EGNOS system, versus the development of 
the new EGNOS version that will ensure compatibility with the Galileo system and with the 
changes in the GPS signals planned for 202619. In the opinion of the consulted stakeholders, 
the programme does not properly address the obsolescence of the current EGNOS version and 
is  therefore  putting  at  risk  the  continuity  of  the  EGNOS  operations.  Indeed,  all  efforts  are 
focused  on  the  development  of  the  new  EGNOS  version,  including  a  new  generation  of 
ground stations which are not compatible with the current EGNOS version. This exposes the 
programme  to  risks.  In  case  of  a  delay  in  the  delivery  of  the  new  EGNOS  version,  the 
continuation of the EGNOS operations might be jeopardised, either due to the obsolescence of 
the current ground stations or due to the incompatibility with the Galileo system and the new 
GPS signal. 

18 PwC aggregation of web-questionnaire results 

19   According to current baseline, the GPS will discontinue the current signal in 2026, two year after the FOC 

declaration of GPS L5 planned in 2024. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
6.1.2.  EGNOS Key Performance Indicators 

The key performance indicators related to the EGNOS infrastructure deployment and service 
levels are required by Article 34 (2) of the GNSS Regulation.  

Indicator 1: Progress of the EGNOS coverage extension versus agreed coverage extension 

Baseline 

Milestones foreseen 
2014  2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Target 2020 

n/a 

plan 
in 

Establishment  of 
an  updated  EU 
coverage 
extension 
for  EU-28 
December 2015 
Establish 
EGNOS Service  
Plan 
Evolution 
v2.0 

EGNOS 
Service  
Evolution 
Plan 
v2.0 
established  in 
201520 

Actual results 

n/a 

EGNOS Service  
Plan 
Evolution 
v2.0 
was 
established 

98.98% 
coverage  of 
EU28-NO-
SW 
masses 
APV-I 

land 
for 

on 
Report 
advancements  
in coverage  

on 
Report 
advancements  
in coverage 

on 
Report 
advancements  
in coverage 

on 
Report 
advancements  
in coverage 

Coverage 
of  EU-28 
with 
EGNOS  in 
line  with 
the EGNOS 
Service 
Evolution 
Plan 

Indicator 2: EGNOS  service  availability  index based on  the number  of airports with EGNOS-based  approach 
procedures  with  an  operational  status  versus  the  total  number  of  airports  with  EGNOS  -  based  approach 
procedures 

Baseline 

Milestones foreseen 
2015 
2014 

2016 
Maintain 
service 
availability 
index: 99% 

the 

2017 
Maintain 
service 
availability 
index: 99% 

the 

the 
Increase 
number 
of 
airports  with 
EGNOS 
procedures 

the 
Increase 
number 
of 
airports  with 
EGNOS 
procedures 

2018  2019 

Target 2020 

the 

Maintain 
service 
availability 
index constantly 
at least on 99% 

Service availability 
index: 100% 

Total  number  of 
airports 
with 
EGNOS 
procedures: 
(2013) 

93 

Total  number  of 
airports 
with 
EGNOS 
procedures  with  an 
operational  status: 
93 (2014) 

Actual results 
Service 
availability 
index: 
97.72% 

Service 
availability 
index: 99.9% 

Service 
availability 
index: > 99% 

Total  number 
of 
airports 
with  EGNOS 
procedures: 

Total  number 
of 
airports 
with  EGNOS 
procedures: 
174 

Total  number 
of airports with 
EGNOS 
procedures: 
230 

20   The  Service  Evolution  Plan  (SEP)  was  agreed  between  the  Commission  and  GSA  and  constitutes  the 
baseline for the implementation of the EGNOS mission and security requirements. It defines the extension 
of EGNOS services over the European territory in terms of their availability which is depicted in a form of 
‘availability maps’. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
132 

Total  number 
of 
airports 
with 
operational 
status: 129 

Total  number 
of 
airports 
with 
operational 
status: 173 

Total  number 
of airports with 
operational 
status: 230 

6.3. Galileo and EGNOS market uptake 

The  European  GNSS  industry  has  grown  and  accounted  for  25%  of  the  global  GNSS 
market in 201521. European manufacturers represented the majority of manufacturers for the 
road and maritime market segments. European system integrators represented the majority of 
integrators for the maritime, agriculture and surveying market segments.  

Although  the  Galileo  programme  is  not  fully  operational  yet,  it  has  already  generated 
major  benefits  in  Europe,  like  the  development  of  navigation,  positioning  and  timing 
services.  The  declaration  of  Galileo  Initial  Services  enabled  chipset  and  receiver 
manufacturers to start leveraging on more performant GNSS signals. Already today, leading 
GNSS companies representing more than 95% of the GNSS chipset market produce Galileo-
ready chips. Following widespread adoption in high-precision devices, a number of Galileo-
ready  devices  has  already  hit  the  mass  market,  including  smartphones  and  in-vehicle 
navigation  systems22.  Initial  Services  are  the  first  step  towards  full  operational  capability, 
foreseen  in  2020,  and  more  benefits  are  expected  in  the  next  years,  with  a  larger  market 
uptake. 

The  regulatory  measures  taken  by  the  EU  in  the  automotive  sector  (eCall  and  Digital 
Tachograph)  are  pushing  for  adoption  of  solutions  integrating  GNSS-based  technologies, 
whilst  at the same  time  ensuring  compatibility with  Galileo and EGNOS. These  regulations 
are  expected  to  produce  large  benefits  in  the  prevention,  management  and  recovery  of 
emergencies. The stakeholder consultation identified a need, for the next phase of the Galileo 
programme, to shift the focus from the deployment and operation of the infrastructure to the 
development of downstream and applications. 

As for EGNOS, major socio-economic benefits have already been produced, especially in 
three industrial domains with the largest market penetration: aviation, agriculture and 
surveying.  In  other  sectors,  such  as  maritime  and  rail,  the  GSA  has  been  implementing 
market  penetration  roadmaps.  However,  due  to  the  general  inertia  to  the  adoption  of  new 
technologies and the existence of alternative ground-based technologies, the market uptake is 
slower in these sectors. The downstream stakeholder consultation has enabled to identify the 
need for further initiatives that would increase market penetration and technology adoption. 

21 GSA: GNSS Market Report, Issue 5 (2017), p.13. 

22 GSA: GNSS Market Report, Issue 5 (2017), p.7. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.1.3.  Market Trend Key Performance Indicators 

The key performance indicators related to the market levels are required by Article 34 (2) of 
the GNSS Regulation.  

Indicator 1: Market share of EU GNSS industry in worldwide GNSS downstream market 

Baseline23 

Milestones foreseen 
2014 

2015 

EGNOS  present  in 
number  of  receiver 
models 
: 
63% 

in  2012 

63% 

35% 

63% 

35% 

Actual results 

Galileo  present 
in 
number  of  receiver 
models 
2012: 
in 
35% 

63% 

35% 

63% 

35% 

2016 

75% 

45% 

68% 

38%25 

2017 

75% 

2018 

78% 

40%24 

42% 

2019 

82% 

44% 

Target 2020 

85% 

70% 

7.  HOW EFFICIENT ARE THE EUROPEAN GNSS PROGRAMMES? 

7.1. Funding 

For the period 2014-2020, the European Union allocated a total budget of EUR 7 071,73 
million  for  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes.  This  envelope  covers  programme 
management  activities,  Galileo  deployment  and  exploitation  activities,  EGNOS  exploitation 
activities and risks associated to these activities. On the evaluation period, some reallocations 
between  budget  lines  have  been  carried  out.  As  of  end  2016,  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
programmes are on track to respect the budget boundaries set by the GNSS regulation for the 
period 2014-2020.  

7.2. Key Performance Indicators 

The Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and the Cost Performance Index (CPI), as required by 
Article  34  (2)  of  the  GNSS  Regulation,  are  monitored  based  on  the  Earned  Value 
Management technique, which enables to monitor and forecast project performance based on 
the  scope,  the  schedule  and  the  cost  of  the  project.  The  Schedule  Performance  Index  (SPI) 
measures  the  schedule  efficiency  of  a  project  by  comparing  the  Earned  Value  (EV)  to  the 
Planned  Value  (PV)  of  a  project.  This  aims  to  assess  how  close  a  project  is  to  performing 

23   The market share indicator is based on the percentage of Galileo and EGNOS receivers in the total number 
of  receiver  models  worldwide.  The  baseline  for  this  indicator  was  established  in  2014  and  the  data  is 
included in the 2014 market report of the European GNSS Agency and will be measured annually. The trend 
of the production of Galileo and EGNOS enabled model receivers suggests that receiver manufacturers are 
gradually integrating Galileo and EGNOS into their products and that the milestone target for this indicator 
is likely to be reached. 

24   As the 2016 Galileo milestone value was forecasted back in 2012 to re-adjust the value due to what happen 

it the meantime. 

25    Out of the 417 devices on the market in 2016, 68% were supporting EGNOS and 38% Galileo .In 2016 there 
were 38 new models launched in the market out of which 82 % were EGNOS capable and 42% Galileo. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
work  as  it  was  scheduled:  if  SPI>1,  then  the  project  is  ahead  of  schedule.  The  Cost 
Performance Index (CPI) measures the cost efficiency of a project by comparing the Earned 
Value (EV) to the Actual Costs (AC) of a project. This aims to assess how close the spending 
of  a  project  is  to  what  was  budgeted  for  a  work  performed:  if  CPI>1,  then  the  project  is 
coming in under the estimated budget. 

ESA and GSA are required in the Delegation Agreements (Annex: Project Management Plan) 
to report on a number of indicators, including the SPI and the CPI, that are used to follow up 
the  progress  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes,  and  to  allow  for  a  strong  financial 
control of the programmes. 

7.1.1.  EGNOS SPI and CPI 

The  Schedule  and  Cost  Performance  Indexes  for  EGNOS  exploitation  show  an 
implementation well in line with the planning. As the Delegation Agreement on EGNOS with 
the GSA was signed in April 2014, the reporting of the SPI and CPI started 3 months after, 
hence in Q3 2014. 

EGNOS 

Schedule 
Performance 
Index 
Cost 
Performance 
Index 

Q3 
2014 

Q4 
2014 

Q1 
2015 

Q2 
2015 

Q3 
2015 

Q4 
2015 

Q1 
2016 

Q2 
2016 

Q3 
2016 

Q4 
2016 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0.94 

0.93 

1.01 

1.02 

1.03 

1.04 

1.04 

1.04 

1.03 

1.03 

1.04 

1.04 

Figure 1: Evolution trend of EGNOS SPI and CPI over the reporting period 

1,2

1,1

1

0,9

0,8

Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016

SPI

CPI

The schedule efficiency of EGNOS service provision has been excellent from Q3 2014 to Q2 
2016 as the project was fully on time. In Q3 2016, a slight decrease is indicated due to a delay 
in the signature of various Change Contract Notices with respect to the planned date. 

The EGNOS cost efficiency was also very positive as the CPI has been above 1 throughout 
the  reporting  period,  which  implies  that  the  total  costs  for  service  provision  were  actually 
lower than the value of work completed according to the budget assigned each quarter. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
7.1.2.  Galileo SPI and CPI  

The data to calculate the Schedule and Cost Performance Indexes are only partially available, 
indicating the planned and actual commitments for Galileo deployment. The remaining data 
were not provided by ESA and industry. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the SPI and CPI 
for most cost items of the programme. 

7.3. Governance 

The  new  European  GNSS  governance  scheme  has  been  progressively  implemented 
during the evaluation period and it has contributed to the efficient implementation and the 
progress of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes over the period. All consulted stakeholders 
have  estimated  that  the  new  governance  scheme  has  brought  more  robust  management 
processes, which have contributed to maintain the programmes within budget boundaries and 
to mitigate partially risks and the impact of unforeseen events on the programmes. In addition, 
the  new  governance  scheme  is  based  on  a  comprehensive  set  of  communication  lines  and 
coordination mechanisms between EC, ESA and the GSA, and has thus provided a good flow 
of information among the governance actors.  

However,  consulted  stakeholders  have  underlined  that  this  was  at  the  cost  of  administrative 
burden,  affecting  the  efficiency  of  the  programmes.  Indeed,  this  information-sharing 
framework  has  lengthened  the  decision-making  process.  Problems  were  identified  for  the 
level of information provided, the structure of reporting and the availability of key indicators. 
In  addition,  the  good  information  flow  among  governance  stakeholders  has  required  an 
important  effort  in  terms  of  reporting  and  attendance  of  meetings.  Moreover,  the  current 
organisation of responsibilities and control processes in the new governance scheme has often 
required lengthy discussions among the governance actors, thus affecting the reactivity of the 
decision-making  process.  Indeed,  the  EC  has  entrusted  through  Delegation  Agreements 
Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  implementation  tasks  to  ESA  and  the  GSA,  and  shall 
oversee the execution of these delegated tasks by the agencies. Such control is necessary to 
ensure  the  proper  programmes'  implementation  and  overall  coordination  of  EU  GNSS 
programmes  with  other  EU  policies,  but  requires  both  agencies  to  perform  additional 
activities  to  ensure  consensus  with  the  EC  on  the  way  tasks  are  executed.  Finally,  the 
governance  actors  play  a  role  that  is  not  necessarily  fully  in  line  with  their  culture, 
competencies and/or structure.  

Thus,  the  consulted  stakeholders  have  recognized  that  the  governance  scheme  is 
logically aligned with the evolution of the programme phases (i.e. transition from Galileo 
deployment  to  the  overlapping  deployment/exploitation  phases).  However,  they  have 
expressed  strong  concerns  concerning  responsibilities  and  risk  sharing,  effort  required  to 
monitor the programmes' implementation, and levels of friction among governance actors. As 
a consequence, the governance scheme is often pointed out as complex and inappropriate for 
operational programmes with a service-driven approach such as Galileo and EGNOS. While 
the  revision  of  the  delegation  agreements  in  2016  has  tackled  the  issues  addressed  in  the 
previous  paragraph  at  least  partially,  further  alternatives  to  optimise  the  programme 
governance  were  discussed.  Most  of  them  focused  on  supporting  the  scale-up  of  the  GSA 
through  a  transfer  of  responsibilities.  This  being  said,  and  although  the  contribution  of  the 
governance  scheme  is  difficult  to  isolate,  this  new  governance  scheme  has  enabled,  at  least 
partially, the substantial progress achieved by the programmes over the period 2014-2016. 

21 

 
 
The security governance  scheme, which  was  set up before the  overall European GNSS 
governance  scheme,  has  also  contributed  to  the  efficient  implementation  and  the 
progress  of  the  programmes.  Indeed,  all  relevant  bodies  and  processes  are  today  up  and 
running, which has allowed the involved actors to fulfil their tasks, ensuring the accreditation 
of all the deployed elements of the European GNSS systems, the accreditation of the Ariane 5 
as  a  launcher  for  Galileo  satellites,  and  the  accreditation  of  Galileo  Initial  Services.  These 
achievements  have  enabled  the  subsequent  Declaration  of  Galileo  Initial  Services  in 
December 2016. 

However, the implementation of system security requirements still necessitates attention and 
work. Consulted stakeholders from the Security Accreditation Board (SAB) and the European 
GNSS programmes have underlined that the current set-up internal to the main actors of the 
programme governance (i.e. EC, ESA and the GSA) does not fully ensure independency from 
the  programme  activities.  Best  practices  suggest  internal  security  organisations  to  report 
directly  to  the  head  of  the  organisation  and  have  independent  access  to  resources  (i.e. 
dedicated personnel).  

In addition, the security governance shall cope with new security challenges triggered by the 
declaration of Galileo Initial Services and the initiation of the programme exploitation phase. 
First,  Galileo  has  become  an  operational  system  and  has  thus  generated  the  interest  for 
malicious  attacks  to  the  infrastructure  and  to  the  operations.  These  threats  shall  not  be 
underestimated and the infrastructure related to the monitoring of the security of the system, 
especially the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre (GSMC), needs to be commensurate with 
these threats. Second, the Declaration of Galileo Initial Services has marked the beginning of 
the overlap between the Galileo system deployment and exploitation phases. This means that 
up to 2020, new elements will be added to the system in parallel to the service provision. This 
needs to be well managed to avoid that  the overlap of the two phases would create security 
issues.  From  a  governance  point  of  view,  because  ESA  will  be  responsible  for  the  system 
deployment and the GSA will be responsible for the system operation, the interaction between 
the two entities  will  have to  be  closely monitored by the Commission,  to  avoid that system 
deployment leads to security issues. Third, there are some issues related to the independence 
of the organisations responsible for security requirement implementation and verification: the 
SAB and the GSMC. The SAB is established under the GSA and works independently with 
no  reporting  to  the  GSA  Executive  Director.  Nevertheless,  the  Executive  Director  is 
responsible for the operation of the GSA and for the allocation of internal resources, including 
to  the  SAB.  This  represents  a  potential  situation  of  conflict  of  interest  that  needs  to  be 
addressed. The GSMC is also established under the GSA and, being one of the Agency's core 
tasks, it is implemented and operated under the responsibility of the GSA Executive Director. 
Nevertheless, for security issues, the GSMC also reports to entities external to the GSA (e.g. 
HR,  EEAS,  Commission,  Council,  national  PRS  authorities).  This  reporting  should  be 
unbiased  from  any  programme  decisions  related  to  the  other  responsibilities  of  the  GSA 
Executive Director (e.g. system operations).  

22 

 
 
 
 
8.  HOW  COHERENT  ARE  THE  EUROPEAN  GNSS  PROGRAMMES  WITH 

OTHER EU POLICIES? 

The European GNSS programmes have shown a high level of internal coherence, both in 
the  governance  and  in  the  R&D  activities.  The  new  governance  scheme  has  been 
progressively  implemented  during  the  evaluation  period  (e.g.  signature  of  the  Delegation 
Agreements  and  Working  Arrangements).  Stakeholders  have  considered  the  overlap  and 
duplication of efforts as inherent to this transition period. But the settling of these agreements 
and the upcoming hand-over process between ESA and the GSA are expected to smooth out 
the overlap and substantially improve the overall coherence of the governance. Moreover, the 
R&D activities are overall coherent. There are three different tools supporting GNSS related 
R&D  activities:  the  EU  Horizon  2020  programme,  the  Fundamental  Elements  initiative 
financed under the Galileo and EGNOS programmes and the ESA Navigation Innovation and 
Support  Programme  (NAVISP).  There  are  limited  inconsistencies  between  them  and  efforts 
are made to increase synergies. 

Galileo and EGNOS have also shown a high level of coherence with other EU policies. 
Stakeholders knowledgeable about EU policy (e.g. Members of the European Parliament, the 
European  GNSS  programmes  Committee,  and  the  programme  management)  have  seen  a 
strong  alignment  of  the  European  GNSS  programmes  with  the  Space  strategy  for  Europe 
communication  of  October  2016  and  with  the  Space  Industrial  Policy  communication  of 
February 2013. Also, alignment with other EU policies has been ensured.  

The European GNSS programmes have also made efforts towards coherence with other 
GNSS  systems.  During  the  evaluation  period,  initiatives  for  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
compatibility and interoperability with other GNSS systems have been mainly fruitful, even 
though  efforts  must  be  maintained  to  enhance  global  results.  Coordination  agreements  have 
been  signed with  the US Global  Positioning  System (GPS), the Indian Regional Navigation 
Satellite  System  (IRNSS)  and  the  Japanese  Quasi-Zenith  Satellite  System  (QZSS).  Partial 
achievements  have  been  reached  with  the  Chinese  GNSS  system  BeiDou.  However,  little 
progress has been made in cooperation activities with the Russian system GLONASS.  

9.  WHAT 

IS  THE  EU  ADDED  VALUE  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  GNSS 

PROGRAMMES? 

The added value of the European GNSS lies not only in ensuring Europe’s independence with 
regard to a critical technology but also in securing important macro-economic benefits for the 
European  Union,  catalysing  the  development  of  new  services  and  products  based  on  GNSS 
and generating technological spin-offs beneficial for research, development and innovation26. 

The  Declaration  of  Galileo  Initial  Services  in  December  2016  was  a  major  step  towards 
reaping  the  benefits  of  Galileo’s  added  value.  Just  a  few  months  after  declaring  Galileo 
services  operational  a  number  of  Galileo-ready  devices  such  as  smartphones  and  car 
navigations  hit  the  mass  market.  All  main  chipsets  (sold  by  17  major  suppliers  worldwide, 
representing  95%  of  the  market)  that  are  used  in  smartphones,  tablets,  cars,  professional 
survey equipment, etc. use Galileo. 

26 SEC(2011)1447.Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, chapter 2.1. 

23 

 
 
                                                            
These chipsets are embedded in consumer and professional products that we can buy today. 
Based  on  the  main  products  on  sale,  the  GSA  estimates  that  more  than  100  million  user 
devices  enabled  for  EGNOS  and/or  Galileo  services  are  today  in  the  hands  of  European 
citizens. From 2018, all new car models sold in the European Union will rely on EGNOS and 
Galileo to calculate the position of emergency calls in case of accidents. 

In addition, the potential number of users is expected to become bigger: shipments of GNSS 
devices in the European Union are expected to grow from 210 million units in 2015 to almost 
290 million in 202027, representing a much larger base of users for EGNOS and Galileo. 

Continuation  of  the  programmes'  implementation  at  EU  level  is  a  condition  for  the 
achievement  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  initial  and  current  objectives.  The  size  and 
complexity of the programmes require an implementation at EU level, as no viable alternative 
exists to ensure the appropriate return on investment. The implementation at EU level is the 
only way the programmes can be carried out and the results achieved. The discussion on the 
EU added-value has  been characterised  by the highest consensus among all  stakeholders on 
the necessity to ensure continuity of the EU action. 

Stopping the Galileo and EGNOS programmes would have severe political, economic and 
scientific  consequences.    The  EU  would  lose  its  credibility  as  a  strategic  partner  providing 
global  satellite  navigation  system  vis-à-vis  its  own  citizens,  industries  and  international 
partners. The overall investment into Galileo and EGNOS (of more than 10 billion EUR since 
2007)  and expected  indirect  economic impacts  would  be lost  together  with  the  potential  for 
innovation  and  building  up  a  high-tech  knowledge  base  in  Europe.  From  the  global 
perspective, the position of Galileo as a global satellite navigation system would be lost.  

10.  HOW IS THE EUROPEAN GNSS AGENCY PERFORMING?  

The GSA has successfully achieved important objectives for the progress of the Galileo 
and  EGNOS  programmes  and  for  the  development  of  European  GNSS  downstream 
markets  through  an  effective  implementation  of  both  core  and  delegated  tasks.  Key 
achievements of the Agency include the implementation in particular of testing activities that 
were required for the declaration of Galileo Initial Services; the contribution to the transition 
to Galileo exploitation phase with the award of the Galileo Service Operator (GSOp) contract; 
the management of the EGNOS operation contract and other responsibilities having led to a 
continuous EGNOS service provision; the smooth implementation of FP7, Horizon 2020 and 
Fundamental  Elements  R&D  projects  and  downstream  market  development  through 
monitoring, communication and promotion activities. The Agency's results have been in line 
with expectations and have been delivered within budget limits.  

The  results  of  the  Agency  have  been  appreciated  by  various  stakeholders.  The  EU  Member 
States  representatives  shared  a  rather  positive  opinion  on  GSA  results,  pointing  out  the 
successful  contribution  to  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes'  implementation,  a  good 
implementation of EU rules in the activities, a transparent reporting on the Agency's activities 
the  objectives  despite  difficulties.  The 
and  results,  and  a  willingness 
representatives of the downstream industry also shared a positive feedback on the GSA: 79% 
of respondents to the questionnaire estimated that the Agency had a positive or very positive 
impact on market development in the evaluation period. 

to  achieve 

27  European GNSS Agency: GNSS Market Report, Issue 5 (May 2017), p.13. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
Processes  implemented  by  the  GSA  are  defined  by  the  legal  framework  governing  the 
Agency  with  which  the  GSA  is  compliant.  This  compliance  allows  a  good  level  of 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  Agency  activities  and  contributes  to  the  effective 
implementation of the programmes. However, this is at the cost of a substantial administrative 
burden, which may have an impact on the efficiency of both the Agency and its stakeholders. 
The Agency has also been proactive to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its delivery 
process.  For  example,  the  GSA  has  been  certified  ISO-9001  for  its  quality  management 
system. Nevertheless, the Agency faces some issues, in particular related to its capacity to hire 
appropriate  profiles  in  terms  of  seniority  and  expertise.  This  is  due  to  a  low  attractiveness 
(salaries, reputation, location) and leads to a need to outsource a part of GSA activities, which 
increases  costs  and  slows  down  internal  capabilities  building.  This  issue  has  become  more 
prominent  with  the  growing  responsibilities  and  budget  of  the  Agency.  Between  2014  and 
2016 with the increasing responsibilities entrusted to the GSA, the total budget managed by 
the Agency has grown by 85,9%, and the GSA staff has increased by 22,1%. 

11.  CONCLUSIONS  

According to the evidence presented in the interim evaluation, the programmes demonstrated 
that  the  implementation  of  the  GNSS  Regulation  and  GSA  Regulation  has  marked  good 
results  in  overall:  the  milestones  set  for  the  evaluation  period  were  achieved,  the 
implementation  of  actions  occurred  within  budget  limits  and  there  is  a  high  degree  of 
coherence of the programmes with other EU policies. The relevance of  the programmes and 
of  the  GSA  is  unquestioned.  The  EU  added  value  is  very  high  compared  to  what  could  be 
achieved at national or regional level.  

The results of this interim evaluation will help to optimise the implementation of the Galileo 
and EGNOS programmes in the short and medium term. It is clear that in the remaining three 
years of the current financial perspective as well as in the future one, efforts will need to be 
made to address a number of challenges. The most important will be:  

1.      increasing  market  uptake  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  services  by  demand  driven 
measures, stimulating development and use of innovative applications, supporting the 
competitiveness  of  the  European  companies  on  the  global  GNSS  market,  promoting 
the use of European satellite navigation technology and services worldwide; 

2.     ensuring continuous provision of Galileo and EGNOS services in the future: reaching 
full  operational  capability  of  Galileo  by  2020,  enlarging  the  coverage  of  EGNOS 
services  to  the  entire  territory  of  the  EU-28  Member  States,  preparing  the  next 
generation of Galileo and EGNOS services and infrastructure; 

3.  optimising  the  current  governance  scheme  for  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes, 
which  should  reflect  the  operational  phase  of  these  service-driven  programmes, 
reducing the administrative burden for the key actors, reducing the complexity of the 
decision  making  process,  taking  into  account  the  new  security  challenges  such  as 
cybersecurity and the need for clear roles and responsibilities of the actors responsible 
for security requirements implementation and verification. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY 

Name or abbreviation 

APV-I service 
COSPAS-SARSAT 

CPI 
CS 
EC 
EDAS 
EGNOS 

ESA 

EU 
European GNSS programmes 
FOC 
Galileo  

GDP 
GLONASS 

GNSS 
GPS 

GSA 
GSMC 
GSOp 
IOV 
IRNSS 

LPV-200 service 

MS 
MSAS 

NAVISP 

OS  
PRS 
QZSS 

SAB 
SAR 
SBAS 
SoL 
SPI 
WAAS 

Description 

Approach with Vertical guidance (EGNOS service for civil aviation). 
The International COSPAS-SARSAT Programme is a treaty-based, non-
profit,  intergovernmental,  humanitarian  cooperation  of  43  nations  and 
agencies  dedicated  to  detecting  and  locating  radio  beacons  activated  by 
persons,  aircrafts  or  vessels  in  distress,  and  forwarding  this  alert 
information to authorities that can take action for rescue. 
Cost Performance Index 
Commercial Service (of the Galileo system) 
European Commission 
EGNOS Data Access Service 
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.  
The  EGNOS  system  is  the  European  Satellite-Based  Augmentation 
System (SBAS). 
The EGNOS programme aims to establish the EGNOS system.   
European  Space  Agency.  ESA  is  an  international  organisation  with  22 
Member States, two of which Norway and Switzerland are not members 
of the EU.  
European Union 
Galileo programme and EGNOS programme 
Full Operational Capability (of the Galileo system) 
The  Galileo  system  is  the  European  Global  Navigation  Satellite  System 
(GNSS). 
The Galileo programme aims to establish the Galileo system. 
Gross Domestic Product 
Globalnaya  navigatsionnaya  sputnikovaya  sistema.  It  is  the  Russian 
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). 
Global Navigation Satellite System 
Global Positioning System. It is the American Global Navigation Satellite 
System (GNSS).  
European GNSS Agency 
Galileo Security Monitoring Centre 
Galileo Service Operator 
In-Orbit Validation (of the Galileo system) 
Indian  Regional  Navigation  Satellite  System.  It  is  the  Indian  Global 
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). 
Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (EGNOS service for civil 
aviation) 
Member States of the European Union 
Multi-functional  Satellite  Augmentation  System.  It  is  the  Japanese 
Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS). 
Navigation  Innovation  and  Support  Programme  (ESA  programme 
supporting GNSS related R&D activities) 
Open Service (of the Galileo and EGNOS systems) 
Public Regulated Service (of the Galileo system) 
Quasi-Zenith  Satellite  System.  It  is  the  Japanese  Global  Navigation 
Satellite System (GNSS). 
Security Accreditation Board 
Search and Rescue service (of the Galileo system) 
Satellite-Based Augmentation System 
Safety of Life service (of the EGNOS system) 
Schedule Performance Index 
Wide  Area  Augmentation  System.  It  is  the  American  Satellite-Based 
Augmentation System (SBAS). 

26 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG: DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) 

2.  Organisation and timing 

The Staff Working Document on interim evaluation of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes 
and evaluation of the European GNSS Agency accompanies the Report from the Commission 
to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
programmes and on the performance of the European GNSS Agency. 

To take stock of the expertise available in other Commission services, an Inter-Service Group 
(ISG) was set up in July 2016, comprising of the following Directorate-Generals: DG GROW, 
SG, SJ, DG BUDG, EEAS, DG CONNECT, DG RTD, DG JRC, DG MOVE. The ISG met 
seven  times  between  July  2016  and  July  2017  and  was  consulted  throughout  the  evaluation 
process.  

3.  Evidence used in the interim evaluation 

Stakeholder consultation 

An  extensive  stakeholder  consultation  was  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  during 
February  and  March  2017.  Two  different  methods  were  used:  face-to-face/telephone 
interviews  and  targeted  consultation  by  means  of  web  questionnaires.  A  total  of  97 
stakeholders  were  consulted:  71  in  direct  interviews,  25  via  web  questionnaires  and  2  via 
written contributions.  

The  face-to-face/telephone  interviews  method  implied  direct  interactions  with  selected 
stakeholders  in  the  form  of  semi-structured  interviews.  For  these  interviews,  12  different 
interview guidelines were developed, tailored to specific categories of stakeholders. Out of a 
base of over 100 key  stakeholders, a total  of 85 have  been  selected to  be interviewed in  72 
different entities.  32% of the sample was made  of representatives of core user organisation, 
while  other  users  counted  for  the  remaining  68%.  In  terms  of  geographical  composition, 
European  users  accounted  for  86%  of  the  sample,  while  the  remaining  14%  consisted  of 
international users in USA, Canada, Switzerland and Australia. A feedback of 71 stakeholders 
received in the direct interviews was used for the interim evaluation.   

Targeted  consultation  implied  distribution  of  web  questionnaires  to  a  large  number  of 
stakeholders. The questions were general so that all types of stakeholders with interest in the 
programmes  could  answer  them.  In  addition  to  a  general  questionnaire,  a  specific 
questionnaire dedicated to EGNOS civil aviation stakeholders (i.e. airports and airlines) was 
prepared and distributed to collect information on EGNOS service performance. Only limited 
feedback of 25 replies was collected via the online questionnaire. This was mainly due to the 
fact  that  the  questionnaires  were  online  for  a  relatively  short  period  of  time  (6  weeks).  To 
compensate  the  low  rate  feedback,  the  focus  was  on  receiving  input  from  additional  direct 
interviews. 

Another  source  of  stakeholders’  input  was  received  during  dedicated  meetings  on  the 
interim  evaluation,  for  example  the  GSA  Administrative  Board  on  26  March  2017,  the 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  GNSS  Programmes  Committee  on  26  April  2017  and  a  meeting  with 
representatives of the downstream industry on 11 May 2017. GSA and ESA were consulted 
during the whole process of the interim evaluation.  

For this interim evaluation derogation from the standard open public stakeholder consultation 
was  granted  as  an  online  public  consultation  on  the  European  Space  Strategy  was 
conducted earlier in 2016. In this public consultation, specific questions were asked related to 
market  uptake  of  the  services  and  data  generated  from  Galileo  and  EGNOS  by  current  and 
future users, as well as the evolution of these programmes in the future. The responses to the 
questions concerning the Galileo and EGNOS programme have been taken into consideration 
in the formulation of the answers to the evaluation questions.  

Desk research 

The secondary data collection involved reviewing various documents and literature relevant 
for  the  evaluation.  Among  the  key  data  sources  of  the  desk  research  were  the  Galileo  and 
EGNOS  monitoring  reports  (quarterly  implementation  reports,  annual  reports  from  the 
Commission,  GSA  and  ESA),  in-depth  market  analysis  carried  out  by  the  GSA  (Market 
Reports, User Technology Report), relevant policy papers of the European Parliament and of 
the  European  Space  Policy  Institute,  the  GSA  readiness  review  carried  out  by  the 
Commission, 
(applicable  Regulations,  Commission 
Implementing  Decisions,  Delegation  Agreements  between  EC  and  ESA  as  well  as  between 
EC and GSA, Working Arrangements between GSA and ESA).  

legal  documents 

together  with 

4.  External expertise  

The  interim  evaluation  is  based  on  an  evaluation  study  contracted  by  the  European 
Commission  to  an  external  consultant  (PwC  France).    The  contractor  started  to  work  in 
November 2016 and submitted the final evaluation study in July 2017. The evaluation study 
fulfils  the  contractual  conditions.  It  applies  methodologies  to  collect,  analyse,  judge  and 
present  primary  and  secondary  data  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions.    The  evaluation 
provides  a  very  good  overview  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  implementation  as 
well  as  of  the  European  GNSS  Agency  and  its  performance  of  the  last  three  years  (2014-
2016).  

With regarding to the timing of the evaluation study, it was expected that the study is finalised 
by end of March 2017. However, due to delays caused by the need to substantially redraft the 
interview  guidelines  in  January  2017,  the  launch  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  was 
postponed  to  mid-February.  Also  due  to  the  number  of  direct  interviews  that  needed  to  be 
carried  out,  the  stakeholder  consultation  was  only  finalised  at  the  end  of  March  2017.    In 
addition,  more  contacts  with  the  contractor  were  needed,  to  reflect  the  requirements  of  the 
ISG.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – INTERVENTION LOGIC 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 – DETAILED EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Main evaluation 
questions 
To  what  extent  are  the 
GNSS 
European 
still 
programmes 
relevant  regarding 
the 
current needs of the EU? 

To  what  extent  were  the 
effects 
(benefits) 
achieved  at  the  lowest 
cost? 

To  what  extent  have  the 
GNSS 
European 
programmes 
been 
in  achieving 
effective 
their objectives? 

To  what  extent  are  the 
GNSS 
European 
programmes 
internally 
coherent  and  coherent 
with  other 
initiatives 
with similar objectives? 
What  is  the  EU  added 
value  of  Galileo  and 
EGNOS? 

To  which  extent  is  the 
GSA performing well? 

Sub-questions per evaluation criteria 

•  To  what  extent  is  an  autonomous  global  satellite  navigation  system  necessary 

for EU?  

•  To what extent is a European regional satellite augmentation system necessary 

for EU?  

•  Do the objectives of Galileo and EGNOS still correspond to the current needs of 

the EU?  

•  To what extent were the resources spent for implementing the programmes used 

efficiently? 

•  To what extent does the governance of the programmes (as set out in chapter III 
of  the  GNSS  Regulation)  contribute  to  the  efficient  implementation  of  the 
programmes?  

•  What  is  the  performance  of  the  programmes  in  terms  of  cost  and  schedule 
performance  indexes  (see  Article  34(2)  (a)(iii)  and  (iv)  GNSS  Regulation  and 
Article 34(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) GNSS Regulation)? 

•  At  system/service  level,  what  progress  has  been  made  with  regard  to 
infrastructure  deployment,  service  level  and  coverage  extension  (see  Article 
34(2)(a)(i)  and  (ii)  GNSS  Regulation  and  Article  34(2)(b)(i)  and  (ii)  GNSS 
Regulation) compared to intended milestones/targets? 

•  Where  results  have  not  been  achieved,  what  factors  have  hindered  their 

achievement?  

•  To what extent have the programmes contributed to the maximisation of socio-
economic  benefits,  and  the  creation  of  know-how  in  Europe  compared  to  set 
aims? 

•  To  what  extent  are  Galileo  and  EGNOS  coherent  with  other  programmes  and 

policies of the EU?  

•  To  what  extent  do  the  actors  involved  (Commission,  GNSS  Agency,  Member 

States and ESA) act to avoid duplication of efforts?  

•  To what extent are Galileo and EGNOS coherent with other GNSS systems? 

•  What is the additional value of Galileo and EGNOS programmes implemented 
at EU level compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national, 
regional and/or local levels?  

•  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes 

continue to require action at EU level?  

•  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the 

existing EU intervention?  

•  What impact has the Agency made in achieving its objectives? 
•  Are the Agency’s results so far in line with the expectations? 
• 

Is  the  Agency  delivering  its  results  in  an  efficient  manner  in  terms  of  smooth 
running, working methods, and use of resources? 

•  To  what  extent  are  the  internal  mechanisms  for  programming,  monitoring, 
reporting  on  and  evaluating  the  Agency  adequate  for  ensuring  accountability 
and  appropriate  assessment  of  the  overall  performance  of  the  Agency  while 
minimising  the  administrative  burden  of  the  Agency  and  its  stakeholders 
(established procedures, layers of hierarchy, division of work between teams or 
units, IT systems, initiative for streamlining and simplification, etc.)? 

•  To what extent are the activities of the Agency coherent with other EU policies? 
•  What  would  be  the  impacts,  including  financial,  in  case  of  a  change  of  scope 

and nature of the Agency’s tasks?  

•  To what extent has the Agency applied its policy on conflicts of interest?  
•  Have  there  been  circumstances  that  may  have  impaired  the  independence  and 

autonomy of the Security Accreditation Board?  

30 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5 – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

An  extensive  stakeholder  consultation  was  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  during 
February  and  March  2017.  Two  different  methods  were  used:  face-to-face/telephone 
interviews  and  targeted  consultation  by  means  of  web  questionnaires.  A  total  of  97 
stakeholders  were  consulted:  71  in  direct  interviews,  25  via  web  questionnaires  and  2  via 
written contributions.  

Direct interviews 

First,  71  stakeholders  from  all  categories  were  consulted  through  face-to-face  or  phone 
interviews (thus 72% of the total number of consultations), including: 

  4 European Parliament Members  
  19  representatives  from 

the  European  GNSS  Programmes  Committee  (SAB 

representatives) 

  8 representatives from the EC (DG GROW) 
  5 representatives from the GSA programme management 
  4 representatives from the ESA programme management 
  8 representatives from upstream industries 
  5 representatives from midstream bodies (security, operations, service) 
  3 representatives from the GSA downstream market development 
  6 representatives from downstream industries 
  9 representatives from national space agencies and industry associations. 

The identification of stakeholders of the Galileo and EGNOS programme were driven by the 
ecosystem of the respective programmes and by geographical considerations. Wide coverage 
of  the  programme  ecosystem  ensured  evaluation  of  feedback  from  all  categories  of 
stakeholders  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes, 
including  GNSS  receiver  manufacturers  and  EGNOS  Safety-of-Life  service  users.  These 
stakeholders included in particular:  

  Policy makers: EU Parliament Members 
  Decision-makers:  European  GNSS  Committee  and  GSA  administration  Board 

members 

  Programme partners: DG GROW, ESA and the European GNSS Agency 
 

Industry:  space  and  ground  segment  manufacturers,  operators  and  downstream 
industry 

  Other entities including National space agencies, associations 

Wide  geographical  coverage  ensured  the  identification  of  stakeholders  from  the  largest 
possible  number  of  EU  Member  States.  As  a  result,  most  countries  in  the  EU-28  were 
represented plus Norway and Switzerland. 

In addition, 2 representatives of the European GNSS Programmes Committee were consulted 
through written contributions. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online questionnaires 

Second, 25 stakeholders from all categories were consulted through web-questionnaires (thus 
26%  of  the  total  number  of  consultations),  including  a  general  questionnaire  and  a  specific 
questionnaire dedicated to EGNOS civil aviation stakeholders. Most questions were in closed 
form,  but  the  stakeholders  were  also  given  the  possibility  to  complete  their  answer  with  an 
open text box. Those stakeholders included: 

  1 representative from the European GNSS Programmes Committee 
  1 representative from the GSA programme management 
  3 representatives from the GSA market development 
  3 representatives from upstream industries 
  11 representatives from downstream industries 
  5 representatives from associations 
  1 representative from another category. 

Dedicated meetings 

From  March  to  May  2017,  the  Commission  services  organised  or  participated  to  dedicated 
meetings  during  which  the  interim  evaluation  was  discussed  with  key  stakeholders.  On  26 
March 2017, the GSA organised a dedicated workshop on the interim evaluation as a part of 
the  GSA  Administrative  Board  meeting.  The conclusions of  this  workshop  were  used  as  an 
input  for  elaborating  the  interim  evaluation.  The  European  GNSS  Programmes  Committee 
met on 26 April, a dedicated ad-hoc meeting on the interim evaluation of the programmes. On 
11 May a special meeting with the representatives of the downstream industry was organised 
to get direct feedback. GSA and ESA were consulted during the whole process of the interim 
evaluation.  

Public consultation 

A standard open public stakeholder consultation was not organised for this interim evaluation 
as an online public consultation on the European Space Strategy was conducted between April 
and July in 2016. In this public consultation, specific questions were asked related to market 
uptake  of  the  services  and  data  generated  from  Galileo  and  EGNOS  by  current  and  future 
users,  as  well  as  the  evolution  of  these  programmes  in  the  future.  The  responses  to  the 
questions concerning the Galileo and EGNOS programme have been taken into consideration 
in the formulation of the answers to the evaluation questions. 

Findings 

All relevant stakeholders had the opportunity to provide inputs. The Commission's minimum 
standards on the coverage of the whole Galileo and EGNOS programmes' value chain and of 
the geography of the European Union have been met. 

Stakeholders  have  provided  in  general  positive  feedbacks  and  good  levels  of  satisfaction. 
However, there have been some diverging views among stakeholders, especially between the 
stakeholders  with  a  direct  involvement  in  the  programmes  and  a  visibility  on  the  internal 
processes  (e.g.  governance  actors,  European  GNSS  Programmes  Committee  members, 
upstream  industries)  and  the  stakeholders  with  no  direct  visibility  on  the  internal  processes 
(e.g. downstream industries, users).  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 – METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE EVALUATION  

The external contractor PwC France established an evaluation framework to use the inputs of 
the stakeholder consultation to  answer the evaluation questions. This evaluation framework, 
which  is  provided  in  PwC  France's  evaluation  study,  establishes  the  Key  Performance 
Indicators  (KPIs)  used  to  answer  the  questions  and  sub-questions  of  the  evaluation  criteria, 
the  type  of  data  gathering  activity  used  to  evaluate  the  KPIs  (I:  Stakeholder  interview;  Q: 
stakeholder  questionnaire;  D:  desk  research),  and  the  targeted  stakeholder  category  or  the 
document used as source of information.  

KPI 

Evaluation framework 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Effectiveness 

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

Question  1A:  At  system/service  level,  what  progress  has  been  made  with  regard  to  infrastructure 
deployment, service level and coverage extension (see Article 34(2)(a)(i) and (ii) GNSS Regulation and 
Article 34(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the GNSS Regulation) compared to the intended milestones/targets?  

1 (a) 

2 (a) 

3 (a) 

4 (a) 

5 (a) 

6 (a) 

7 (a) 

Number of Galileo satellites 
declared 
for 
operations 

ready 

EGNOS 
of 
Number 
payloads  declared  ready  for 
operations 

Number 
successful 
of 
satellite  ‘Launch  Readiness 
Reviews’  executed  in  the 
period 2014-2016 

Number 
successful 
of 
EGNOS  payloads  ‘Launch 
Readiness 
Reviews’ 
executed in the period 2014-
2016 

Number of On-Orbit Galileo 
declared 
satellites 
operational 
the  period 
2014-2016 

in 

Utilisation  of  the  Ariane  5 
launcher  

On-Orbit 
of 
Number 
EGNOS  payloads  declared 
the  period 
in 
operational 

33 

X 

X 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports  

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports  

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
KPI 

8 (a) 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

2014-2016 

Reports 

Elements of the core Galileo 
Ground  Segments  declared 
operational 
time 
in 
frame 2014-2016 

the 

9 (a) 

EGNOS system releases 

10 (a) 

Galileo service declarations 

11 (a) 

EGNOS 
declarations 

service 

12 (a) 

Availability of Galileo SDD    

13 (a) 

14 (a) 

15 (a) 

16 (a) 

17 (a) 

EU-28  land  mass  provided 
with APV-I service 

 x 

EU-28  land  mass  provided 
with VLP-200 service 

x 

Total  number  of  airports 
with  EGNOS  procedures 
(A) 

x 

Total  number  of  airports 
with  EGNOS  procedures 
with  an  operational  status 
(B) 

EGNOS  service  availability 
index  based  on  the  number 
of  airports  with  EGNOS 
procedures 
an 
operational status versus the 
total  number  of  airports 
with  EGNOS  procedures 
(B/A) 

with 

18 (a) 

EGNOS  coverage  extension 
vs planned service coverage 
area 

 x 

34 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports ESA – Technical 
Annexes to the Progress 
Reports 

GSA/ESSP 

GSA/ESSP 

GSA/ESSP 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports  

GSA – Annual Report 

GSA Annual implementation 
report, FP6, FP7, 
Horizon2020 Website 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports 

GSA Annual Implementation 
Report, FP6, FP7, 
Horizon2020 website 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
KPI 

19 (a) 

20 (a) 

Establishment 
of 
international  partnership  in 
strategic  area  of  extensions 
(to be repeated for each area 
of extension) 

Activities  initiated  to  raise 
awareness  in  the  areas  of 
extension 

21 (a) 

Number of installed RIMS 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
Reports 

GSA/ESSP 

x 

x 

x 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report, FP6, 
FP7, Horizon2020 Website 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report, FP6, 
FP7, Horizon2020 Website 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report, FP6, 
FP7, Horizon2020 Website 

Question 1B: Where results have not been achieved, what factors have hindered their achievement? 

1 (b) 

Exogenous factors 

x 

2 (b) 

3 (b) 

Anticipation 
changes 

of 

policy 

x 

Anticipation  of  risks  and/or 
opportunities 

x 

x 

x 

EC, GSA, ESA, OHB, Airbus 
D&S 

EC, GSA, ESA, OHB, Airbus 
D&S 

EC, GSA, ESA, OHB, Airbus 
D&S 

Question 1C: To what extent has the programme contributed to socio-economic benefits, and the 
creation of know-how in Europe compared to set aims. 

1 (c) 

2 (c) 

3 (c) 

4 (c) 

5 (c) 

Impacts  on  EU  MS  GDP, 
employment 
tax 
revenues 

and 

x 

jobs 
Number  of 
upstream industry 

in 

the 

Number  of 
downstream industry 

jobs 

in 

the 

EU industry share of GNSS 
global market (Galileo) 

EU industry share of GNSS 
global market (EGNOS) 

35 

EC, ESA, GSA  

European GNSS Agency, 
Market Report 2015 

European GNSS Agency, 
Market Report 2015 

Draft General Budget of the 
European Commission for the 
financial year 2016 and for 
the year 2018 

Draft General Budget of the 
European Commission for the 
financial year 2016 and for 
the year 2018 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KPI 

6 (c) 

7 (c) 

8 (c) 

9 (c) 

10 (c) 

11 (c) 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

x 

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

GSA Website 

x 

GSA Website 

x 

x 

GSA Website 

GSA Website 

Percentage  of  European 
farmers  relying  on  EGNOS 
to 
precision 
agriculture 

enhance 

Reduction  in  the  amount  of 
labour  needed  for  organic 
farming 
using 
EGNOS 

when 

Safety-of-Life 
Service  
contribution to the reduction 
of C02 emissions 

Safety-of-Life 
Service  
contribution to the reduction 
of 
and 
cancellations 

delays 

flight 

Impact  on  technologies  and 
new products 

x 

Networking 
return 

and 

image 

x 

x 

x 

Efficiency 

Industrial/Commercial 
partners (potentially ESA and 
EUROSPACE) 

Industrial/Commercial 
partners (potentially ESA and 
EUROSPACE) 

Question  2A:  To  what  extent  were  the  resources  spent  on  implementing  the  programmes  used 
efficiently? 

1 (a) 

2 (a) 

3 (a) 

4 (a) 

5 (a) 

Change 
of 
commitments 

costs 

and 

Programme 
commitments 

costs 

and 

intervention 

EU 
efficiency  

cost 

H2020 Projects 

Schedule implementation 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Quarterly Implementation 
Reports 

Quarterly Implementation 
Reports 

Quarterly Implementation 
Reports 

GSA Website 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report 

Question 2B: To what extent does the governance of the programmes (as set out in chapter III of the 
GNSS Regulation) contribute to the efficient implementation of the programmes? 

1 (b) 

Programme reporting 

x 

x 

GSA, ESA, EC 

Question 2C: What is the performance of the programmes in terms of cost and schedule performance 
indexes  (see  Article  34(2)(a)(iii)  and  (iv)  GNSS  Regulation  and  Article  34(2)(b)(iii)  and  (iv)  GNSS 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
KPI 

Regulation)? 

1 (c) 

Cost and schedule 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

x 

EC – Quarterly Progress 
reports 

GSA – Annual 
Implementation reports 

Coherence 

Question 3A: To what extent are Galileo and EGNOS coherent with other programmes and policies of 
the EU? 

1 (a) 

2 (a) 

3 (a) 

4 (a) 

5 (a) 

6 (a) 

7 (a) 

8 (a) 

9 (a) 

Coherence  of  the  EGNSS 
programme  policies  with 
policies of the EU 

x 

Internal  consistency  of  the 
EGNSS programme policies 

Coherence  of  the  EGNSS 
programme  policies  with 
other EU policies  

Coherence  of  the  EGNSS 
programme policies with the 
EU Space Policy 

countries 
their 

EU 
declared 
GNSS-based tolling 

having 
in 

interest 

countries 

having 
EU 
successfully 
implemented 
GNSS-based tolling systems 

Flexibility 
organisation  

for 

new 

Coherence  of  the  EGNSS 
programme  policies  with 
H2020 RTD Objectives 

Coherence  of  the  EGNSS 
programme  policies  with 
policies of the EU 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Programme management  

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

x 

x 

GNSS Market Report, issue 4 
(2015) and issue 5 (2017) 

GNSS Market Report, issue 4 
(2015) and issue 5 (2017) 

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

Programme management, 
Upstream and Downstream 

Question  3B:  To  what  extent  do  the  organisations  involved  (Commission,  GNSS  Agency,  Member 
States and ESA) take measures to avoid the duplication of efforts? 

1 (b) 

2 (b) 

Perimeter duplication 

Occurrence of overlaps 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Programme Management  

Programme Management  

37 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
KPI 

3 (b) 

4 (b) 

5 (b) 

Type of data collection  

Q  

D  

I  

x 

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

Programme Management  

Efficiency  of  determination 
of duplications 

Duplications  of  efforts  in 
service provision 

x 

Efficiency  of  redundancy 
determination 

x 

Midstream actors 

Midstream actors 

Question 3C: To what extent are Galileo and EGNOS coherent with other GNSS systems? 

1 (c) 

Coherence with other GNSS  x 

x 

x 

Infrastructure development 
entities/GSA Market Report, 
GSA GNSS Technology 
report 

Question  4A:  What  is  the  additional  value  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  programmes  compared  to  what 
could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local levels? 

EU Added Value 

1 (a) 

2 (a) 

3 (a) 

4 (a) 

5 (a) 

6 (a) 

x 

x 

x 

Added  value  of  European 
project 
intervention 
management 

for 

Added  value  of  financial 
risks  compared  to  national 
initiatives  

x 

x 

Added value for operational 
risk mitigation 

x 

Added value on cooperation 
modalities  and  impact  on 
bureaucracy  

Added  value  of  European 
intervention for funding  

x 

Added  value  of  a  European 
competitive landscape  

x 

DG GROW, GPS, 
GLONASS, BEIDOU, Prime 
contractors 

GSA, National Space 
Agencies 

GSA and Prime contractors  

 ESA, EC, GSA 

ESA, EC, GSA   

Procurement entity  

Question 4B: To what extent do the issues addressed by Galileo and EGNOS programmes continue to 
require action at EU level?  

1 (b) 

Importance  of  EU 
actions 

level 

x 

EC, GSA, Members States 

Question 4C: What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU 
intervention?  

1 (c)  

Importance 
intervention 

of 

EU 

x 

Member States, DG GROW, 
ESA 

38 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
KPI 

Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

GSA evaluation 

Question 5A: What impact has the GSA made in achieving its objectives? 

1 (a) 

2 (a) 

EGNOS-based 
adoption 

approach 

x 

Advancement 
market adoption strategy  

against 

x 

x 

x 

3 (a) 

EGNSS Market uptake  

x 

x 

4 (a) 

Number 
engaged/certified 
manufacturers and operators 

of 

x 

x 

5 (a) 

Stakeholder satisfaction 

x 

X 

ESSP, Airlines, National 
Aviation Authorities 

GSA, Long lead-time user 
communities (EU 
Agencies/Bodies, 
Governmental bodies, 
Commercial)  

GSA, Long lead-time user 
communities (EU 
Agencies/Bodies, 
Governmental bodies, 
Commercial)  

Industrial/Commercial 
partners (potentially ESA and 
EUROSPACE) 

Industrial/Commercial 
partners (potentially ESA and 
EUROSPACE) 

Question 5B: Are the Agency’s results so far in line with the expectations? 

1 (b) 

2 (b) 

3 (b) 

4 (b) 

5 (b) 

6 (b) 

7 (b) 

Security 
Board Meetings 

Accreditation 

x 

Security  accreditation  and 
certification 

x 

Operational readiness of the 
GSMCs 

x 

Established  and  accredited 
interfaces to CPA 

x 

Ramp-up  of  personnel  for 
GSMC operations 

x 

Technical 
to 
Competent PRS Authorities 

support 

x 

to 
Reports 
Parliament and Council 

the  European 

x 

8 (b) 

Service & system evolutions  x 

39 

EC, GSA, ESA 

EC, GSA, ESA 

EC, GSA  

EC, GSA  

EC, GSA  

EC, GSA, National POC  

GSA 

GSA, Long lead-time user 
communities (EU 
Agencies/Bodies, 
Governmental bodies, 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of data collection  

I  

Q  

D  

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

KPI 

9 (b) 

10 (b) 

11 (b) 

EGNOS system releases 

Promotion of applications & 
services 

x 

x 

Number  of  promotional 
activities  

x 

12 (b) 

Fundamental elements 

x 

x 

Commercial)  

GSA, ESA  

GSA, industrial partners, 
long-lead time users 

GSA, industrial partners, 
long-lead time users  

GSA interview/ FP6, FP7, 
Horizon2020 Website/GSA 
Website 

Question 5C: Is the Agency delivering its results in an efficient manner in terms of smooth running, 
working methods, and use of resources? 

1 (c) 

Use of resources 

GSA Annual Implementation 
Reports 

2 (c) 

3 (c) 

4 (c) 

5 (c) 

6 (c) 

7 (c) 

Use of (human) resources 

Working methods 

GSQ 
and 
resources 
allocation  plan  vs  assigned 
tasks and objectives 

Resource optimisation  

Costs vs benefits  

Reporting quality  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

8 (c) 

Staff integration 

GSA  

GSA  

GSA  

GSA 

GSA 

x 

x 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report 

GSA Quarterly 
Implementation Report 

9 (c) 

Work organisation  

x 

GSA 

Question 5D: To what extent are the internal mechanisms for programming, monitoring, reporting 
and evaluating the Agency adequate for ensuring accountability and appropriate assessment of the 
overall performance of the Agency while minimising the administrative burden of the Agency and its 
stakeholders (established procedures, layers of hierarchy, division of work between teams or units, IT 
systems, initiative for streamlining and simplification, etc.)? 

1 (d) 

Internal mechanisms 

X 

EC, GSA 

Question 5E: To what extent are the activities of the Agency (GSA) coherent with other EU policies? 

1 (e) 

Coherence of the GSA with 
intra-European policies 

x 

Members of the European 
Parliament  

40 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
KPI 

2 (e) 

3 (e) 

4 (e) 

Type of data collection  

Q  

D  

I  

x 

Coherence of the GSA with 
market segments  

Coherence  of  GSA  RTD 
activities with H2020 

x 

Coherence of GSA activities 
with 
Common 
Approach  

EU 

x 

Audience for interviews and 
surveys/  Source  for  desk 
research 

Downstream actors  

Downstream actors 

Members of the European 
Parliament  

41