A cost-benefit analysis for the expansion of the Copernicus portfolio : a new value-added product related to Ground Motion.
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: cost-benefit analysis, data collection, database, observation, remote sensing, satellite, satellite navigation, space technology

A cost-benefit analysis for the 
Expansion of the Copernicus 
Portfolio 

A new value-added product related to Ground Motion 

November – 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate I — Space Policy, Copernicus and Defence 
Unit I.3 — Space Data for Societal Challenges and Growth 

Contact: Nicolae Mitu 

E-mail:  nicolae.mitu@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A cost-benefit analysis for the 
Expansion of the Copernicus 
Portfolio 

A new value-added product related to Ground Motion 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

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

2017 

EN 

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

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

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

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

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

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-75351-0 
DOI: 10.2873/589 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 7 

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ 8 

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

1.1. Presentation of the context ............................................................................. 9 
1.2. Purpose and objective of the study ................................................................... 9 
1.3. Overview of the Copernicus programme .......................................................... 11 
1.4. Approach considered for the study ................................................................. 14 

2. GROUND MOTION: PURPOSE AND APPLICATIONS ...................................................... 15 

2.1. Introduction to Ground Motion ....................................................................... 15 
2.2. Presentation of Radar satellites ...................................................................... 16 
2.3. High level presentation of Ground Motion measurement techniques .................... 17 
2.4. Examples of applications of product using InSAR .............................................. 19 
2.5. The Terrafirma project ................................................................................. 20 
2.6. Ground Motion within the Copernicus programme ............................................. 21 

3. EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL OF “GMSDE”, A NEW COPERNICUS PRODUCT .................... 24 

3.1. Relevance of developing GSMDE and high level technical definition ..................... 24 
3.2. Assessing the industry’s perspective on GMSDE on 6 criteria .............................. 25 
3.3. Approach for the consultation ........................................................................ 26 

4. RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ............................................................................ 28 

4.1. Overall results of the consultation .................................................................. 28 
4.2. Deep dive on the insights gathered on each criterion ........................................ 28 

5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 35 

INTERVIEW GUIDELINES ............................................................................................ 36 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ACRONYMS 

AOI 
CAGR 
DG 
DINSAR 
DLR 
DS 
DSI 
EC 
EO 
ERS 
ESA 
EU 
GEOS 
GEP 
GMES 
GMSDE 
GNSS 
GRD 
HR 
InSAR 
OSW 
OWI 
PDGS 
PS 
PSI 
RVL 
SAR 
SLC 
TEU 

Area of Interest 
Compound annual growth rate 
Directorate General 
Differential SAR Interferometry 
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Space Agency) 
Distributed Scatterer 
Distributed Scatterer Interferometry 
European Commission 
Earth Observation 
European Remote Sensing Satellite 
European Space Agency 
European Union 
Global Earth Observation System 
Geohazards Exploitation Platform 
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 
Ground Motion Spatial Database over Europe 
Global Navigation Satellite System 
Ground Range Detected 
High Resolution 
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar 
Ocean Swell Spectra 
Ocean Wind Field  
Payload Data Ground Segment  
Persistent Scatterer 
Persistent Scatterer Interferometry 
Surface Radial Velocity 
Synthetic Aperture Radar 
Single Look Complex 
Treaty on European Union 

 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Presentation of the context 

The  Copernicus  programme  is  one  of  the  largest  Earth  Observation  programmes  considering  the 
number  of  satellites1  and  the  amount  of  data  generated  with  four  Terabytes  of  data  per  day2. 
Copernicus is managed by the European Union through the European Commission and in partnership 
with the European Space Agency (ESA). The programme was first named the Global Monitoring for 
Environment  and  Security  (GMES).  GMES  was  created  in  1998.  In  2008  the  programme  had  the 
official launch of the three pre-operational services. This pre-operational phase ended in 2011 with the 
initial operations.  

In 2012, GMES was renamed Copernicus. Since 2014, Copernicus entered its fully operational phase 
with  the  continuous  development  of  its  capabilities  through  the  launch  of  new  satellites  meant  to 
complete the constellation and through the provision of new products based on Copernicus data. 

The development costs of the space and service components of the Copernicus programme are shared 
between the European Union and ESA. The overall budget for Copernicus between 2008 and 2020 is 
about EUR 7.4bn shared between the European Commission (60%) and ESA (40%)3. 

With  the  development  of  the  Copernicus  programme,  the  Copernicus  services  and  their  products 
portfolio  are  expected  to  evolve.  In  order  for  the  Copernicus  services  to  correspond  to  users’ 
expectations, new products are to be considered according to identified needs. This service evolution 
is  made  through a  well-established process. DG GROW,  as  stipulated in  the Delegation  agreements 
signed with the Entrusted entities in charge of each Copernicus services, organizes a “transparent user 
consultation process”, the results of which are meant to be balanced regarding budget constraints and 
a  prioritization  effort.  A  Ground  Motion  Spatial  Database  has  already  been  produced  successfully 
within  the  Copernicus  Portfolio  of  Services  by  the  Copernicus  Emergency  Management  Service 
(EMSN030), however is was covering a limited area (approx. 11 km²) and it was circumscribed to the 
request made by the National Directorate General for Disaster Management of Hungary. The outcome 
of  this  product  was  appreciated  and  the  potential  need  to  expand  its  usage  to  continental  Europe 
identified. 

1.2. Purpose and objective of the study 

Assessing the possibility of developing a new product for Copernicus 
The objective of the study is to assess the opportunity for the expansion of the Copernicus portfolio 
with the development of a new Copernicus product related to Ground Motion. This potential product 
will be referred as “Ground Motion Spatial Database for Europe” or “GMSDE”. The goal of this study 
is also to analyse which perimeter and scope this potential new product should encompass. This 
assessment  is  made  in  regards  to  objective,  pre-defined  criteria  by  the  European  Commission,  the 
Copernicus Committee and User Forum. Those criteria are the following: 

•  Non-rival 

•  General purpose 

1 http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Overview3 

2 http://newsletter.copernicus.eu/article/data-volume 

3  Strategy&,  2015.  Study  GDP  Impact.  Final  Report  Prepared  by  Strategy&  for  the  European  Commission.  September, 

2015. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
•  European value-added 

•  No private alternative 

•  Overwhelming public interest 

•  Limited additional costs 

 
 
 
 
1.3. Overview of the Copernicus programme 

Presentation 
The  Copernicus  programme  is  composed  of  several  layers,  from  the  Copernicus  programme 
management, the Copernicus Space component, the contributing missions, the in-situ component, the 
Copernicus services and their associated Copernicus core products. 

Programme management 
The Copernicus programme Management is composed of 3 groups of stakeholders: 

  The  first  one  is  the  European  Commission  via  DG  GROW  which  assumes  the  role  of 
programme  manager,  with  regulatory  and  executive  prerogatives.  It  assumes  the  overall 
responsibility for achieving the programme performance, the timeline for implementation 
and the budgetary objectives. In particular, the European Commission supports the continued 
development of the Copernicus services. 

  The second one is the Copernicus Committee which is composed of representatives of the 
EU  Member  States.  The  Copernicus  Committee  supports  the  European  Commission  in 
ensuring the overall coordination of contributions to the Copernicus programme by the 
European Union, the Member States and the inter-governmental organisations involved in the 
programme.  

  Thirdly,  the  Copernicus  User  Forum  is  composed  of  representatives  of  Member  States, 
which  serve  also  as  national  focal  points  in  regards  to  the  national  industry  and  public 
organisations involved in the Copernicus Programme. The role of the Copernicus User Forum 
is  to  ensure  the  continuous  involvement  of  the  users  in  the  definition  and  validation  of 
service requirements. 

Components of the Copernicus programme 
The Copernicus programme is built upon three components: 
•  A Space component which includes the Sentinels satellites (Sentinel 1 to 6)4: 

◦  Sentinel-1 is a polar orbiting radar imaging mission (Sentinel-1A was launched on April 

2014 and Sentinel-1B on April 2016) 

◦  Sentinel-2 is a polar orbiting multispectral optical mission (Sentinel-2A was launched in 

June 2015 and Sentinel-2B on March 2017) 

◦  Sentinel-3 is a multi-instrument mission (Sentinel-3A was launched in February 2016) 

◦  Sentinel-4 is a payload devoted to atmospheric monitoring embedded in Meteosat Third 

Generation Sounder 

◦  Sentinel-5 is a payload devoted to atmospheric monitor on polar orbit, it will be preceded 

by Sentinel-5P that is its precursor.  

◦  Finally, Sentinel-6 will carry a radar altimeter and will be devoted to operational 

oceanography and climate studies.  

•  The space component also includes third-party satellites known as “contributing missions”. Those 

third-party satellites include several existing or planned satellites such as Envisat, MetOp, 
European Remote Sensing Satellite (ERS), SPOT or the non-European LANDSAT and Worldview 
1, 2 and 35. 

4 http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Overview4 

5 http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Contributing_Missions_overview 

11 

 
 
                                                 
• 

In addition to the space component, the second component is referred to the in-situ component 
which consists of ground-based and airborne data gathering networks providing information on the 
land, maritime and air environments. 

•  Finally, the service component is providing users with data and products (Copernicus Core 

Products) incorporated in the following six services: 

◦  Land monitoring (Global, Pan-European and local components) 

◦  Marine environment monitoring 

◦  Atmosphere monitoring 

◦  Emergency management 

◦  Climate change 

◦  Security (Maritime surveillance, Border surveillance and Support to EU External Action 

components) 

See the overview in Figure 1. 

The  open  data  policy  is  regulated  through  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1159/20136. 

6 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1159 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Overview of the Copernicus programme and its associated components (Source: PwC Analysis) 

13 

Copernicus Programme ManagementCOPERNICUS PROGRAMME MANAGEMENTCommitteeUser forumCopernicus Space componentTechnical coordinationSPACE COMPONENTSentinels missions operated byContributing MissionsFrom EU Member StatesFrom foreign partnersCopernicus in-situ componentIN SITU COMPONENTCoordinated by theEuropean Environment AgencyFrom EU Member-StatesSERVICESLandMonitoringMarine environmentMonitoringAtmosphere MonitoringEmergency ManagementClimate ChangeSecurityEnd-usersEnd-usersEnd-usersEnd-usersEnd-usersEnd-usersImplementation by the European Entrusted Entities (EEE) of 6 core services using space and in-situ componentsUtilisation and/or provision of Copernicus core productsCompanies, academia or public organisationsCreation of downstream applicationsusing EEE derived Copernicus products  
 
 
 
 
 
1.4. Approach considered for the study 

The evaluation process to decide the opportunity to develop the new GMSDE product is being 
made through a 4-step process: 

1.  First step: the European Commission identified through different consultations and 

workshops that various user communities (public research organisation, companies in the 
oil & gas sector, etc.) highlighted their need for a Ground Motion product which led to 
this initiative to assess the relevance of developing a GMSDE based on the 6 criteria pre-
identified by the European Commission. High level technical specifications were derived 
from those consultations.  

2.  Second step: In the course of this study, an interview of stakeholders, mainly European 

companies providing Ground Motion-based products and services using satellites data, is 
conducted by PwC in order to assess the 6 pre-defined criteria. 

3.  Third step: The data gathered in the consultation is analysed and recommendations from 
PwC to the European Commission concerning the way to go with GMSDE are provided. 

4.  Fourth step: Finally, based on the recommendation and its own assessment, the European 
Commission will decide if it should proceed toward the development and provision of 
GMSDE. 

 
 
 
 
 
2. GROUND MOTION: PURPOSE AND APPLICATIONS 

2.1. Introduction to Ground Motion 

Definition 
Ground  displacement,  is  the  result  of  either  natural  processes  or  of  human  activity.  Ground 
displacements  can  be  considered  as  relatively  significant  when  they  can  cause  damage  to 
buildings or infrastructures. Consequences of Ground Motion are mainly related to the nature 
of the ground (its geology) and can impact both urban and rural environments.  

Relevance of detection Ground Motion 
Larger magnitude ground motions events are often preceded by smaller ones. Consequently, if 
these  events  can  be  detected  in  advance,  the  resulting  effects  can  be  avoided  or  mitigated. 
Events  leading  to  ground  motions  can  extend  over  large  areas  that  might  affect  multiple 
buildings  and  infrastructures.  Monitoring  of  changes  in  the  ground  surface  level  enables 
damaging movements to be anticipated. 

Monitoring Ground Motion: how? 
Ground Motion can occur in any direction - up, down, sideways with movements range from 
less  than  a  millimetre  to  more  than  a  kilometre  depending  on  the  timeframe  considered.7 
Different techniques are currently used to monitor displacements of the Earth’s surface over 
time. To measure such displacements, devices used are listed in two groups:  

•  Geotechnical measuring devices which are using instruments without any external Geo-
referencing and mostly used in-situ (e.g. extensometers, accelerometers, seismometers). 

•  Geodetic measuring devices which are using Geo-referencing (a reference point located 
outside the area to be measured). Such devices can include SAR satellites (Synthetic 
Aperture Radar satellites) and GNSS receivers. Among Geodetic measuring techniques 
using SAR, Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI) is one of them. PSI is based on the 
use of a long series of SAR imagery8 as the larger the number of images, the more precise 
and robust the results. 

Ground Motion market share 
•  According to NSR, The global market for SAR data was in 2015 of USD 297 M and is 
expected  to  have  a  CAGR  (Compounded  Annual  Growth  Rate)  of  10,9%  up  to  2025 
where it is believed to represent USD 833 M9. Ground Motion represents approximately 
15% of the global SAR market and was estimated in 2015 at USD 44 M globally and USD 
12  M  in  Europe.10  This  is  rather  small  if  we  consider  the  total  revenues  of  the  EO 
European market11: 

7 Source : Terrafirma, Ground Motion Hazards 

8 http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/3/1045/pdf 

9 Source : Satellite-Based Earth Observation 8th edition, 2016, NSR 

10  Source :  Business  in  Earth  observation  «  an  overview  of  market  development  and  emerging  applications  », 

eoVOX 

11 http://earsc.org/news/earsc-eo-industry-survey, 2017, A survey into the state and health of the European EO 

Services Industry, page 8 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.2. Presentation of Radar satellites  

Earth  Observation  (EO)  satellites  can  be  divided  in  two  groups  depending  on  the  kind  of 
sensor they are using to gather data. 

Passive sensors 
The  first  group  consists  of  passive  sensors.  Passive  sensors  encompass  all  sensors  that  use 
external  energy  sources  to  “observe”  an  object  such  as  optical  or  infrared  cameras.  Passive 
sensors’  main  disadvantage  are  that  they  are  unable  to  perform  in  some  conditions  such  as 
cloudy  skies.  Therefore,  they  cannot  always  be  used  to  observe  the  Earth  surface  (or  the 
oceans). In the Copernicus Programme, passive sensors can be found in the Sentinel 2 family 
of satellites. 

Active sensors 
The other group of sensors are active sensors. Active sensors comprise all sensors that rely on 
their own sources of radiation to illuminate objects so that the energy reflected is returned to 
the sensor and can be measured. The most common active sensors used in remote sensing are 
radar-based.  Within  the  Copernicus  Programme,  active  sensors  can  be  found  with  the 
Synthetic  Aperture  Radar  (SAR)  on  board  of  Sentinel-1  and  the  altimeter  of  the  Sentinel  3 
satellites. 

Figure 2: Distinction between passive and active remote sensing (Source: PwC) 

Overview of the SAR systems 
SAR  systems  generates  high-resolution  remote  sensing  imagery.  Signal  processing  uses 
magnitude  and  phase  of  the  received  signals  over  successive  pulses  from  elements  of  a 
synthetic aperture to create an image.  As the line of sight direction changes along the radar 
platform trajectory, a synthetic aperture is produced by signal processing that has the effect of 
virtually  lengthening  the  antenna.  The  achievable  azimuth  resolution  of  a  SAR  is 
approximately equal to one-half the length of the actual (real) antenna and does not depend on 
platform  altitude  (distance).  High  range  resolution  is  achieved  through  pulse  compression 
techniques. In order to map the ground surface, the radar beam is directed to the side of the 
platform trajectory. With a sufficiently wide antenna beam width,  an identical target or area 
may be illuminated a number of times without a change in the antenna look angle12.  

12 Source: ESA, Sentinel1 user guides 

Passive remotesensingActive remotesensing 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Example of satellites using SAR in Europe 
In Europe, several satellites are using SAR. Examples include COSMO-Skymed, TerraSAR-
X and TanDEM-X. 

SAR systems and how they can be used to monitor Ground Motion 
In  order  to  monitor  Ground  Motion,  a  specific  type  of  SAR  data  is  required,  the 
Interferometric  SAR  data  or  InSAR  data.  InSAR  is  a  technique  that  uses  the  measured 
differences  in  the  phase  of  the  return  signal  between  two  satellite  passes  to  detect  slight 
changes on the Earth’s surface. The combination of two radar measurements of the same point 
on  the  ground,  taken  at  the  same  time,  but  from  slightly  different  angles,  to  produce  stereo 
images. Using the cosine rule from trigonometry to calculate the distance between the radar 
and the Earth’s surface, these measurements can produce very accurate height maps, or maps 
of  height  changes.  Among  multiple  other  applications  mapping  height  changes  provides 
information on earthquake damage, volcanic activity, landslides and glacier movement12. 

Figure 3: InSAR data measurement 

2.3. High level presentation of Ground Motion measurement techniques 

Persistent Scatterer Interferometry 
Persistent  Scatterer  Interferometry  (PSI)  is  a  non-invasive  surveying  technique  able  to 
measure  with  a  millimetre-scale  accuracy  motions  of  individual  terrain  features  over  wide 
areas  in  both  urban  and  semi-urban  environments.  PSI  is  based  on  the  availability  of 
substantial radar data archive acquired by a number of different satellites. Using these multi-
temporal  radar  data-sets,  the  PSI  algorithm  specifically  identifies  common  geographical 
locations  in  each  scene  that  reliably  and  persistently  reflect  the  radar  signal  back  to  the 
satellite.  These  locations,  or  Persistent  Scatterers  (PS)  are  generally  parts  of  man-made 
structures such as buildings, bridges, pylons or any other type of infrastructures. They act as 
persistent scatterers because of their serendipitous geometry, surface-roughness and electrical 
conductivity. After identification of the PS in a data-set, the algorithm compares the inherent 
phase data between all common scatterers across all scenes. Any difference in phase can be 
interpreted to elevation variations. 

17 

Displacement over timeLine of sight 
 
  
 
A unique benefit of PSI is its ability to provide both average annual motion rates as well as 
multi-year motion histories for individual scatterers.13 

Figure 4: Deformation velocity map of Barcelona using PSI14 

 Areas in green show an absence of ground motion whereas areas in blue (+10 mm) and in 
red (-10mm) are subject to Ground Motion over a year.  

Distributed Scatterer Interferometry 
Distributed Scatterers  Interferometry  (DSI)  is  also  a  Ground  Motion  SAR-based monitoring 
technique that has been proposed to monitor the surface deformation with high spatial density 
of  measurement  points.  The  main  drawback  of  DSI  is  the  computational  efficiency  in  large 
areas. DSI can be identified from the combination of classification analysis and mathematical 
statistics  method.  The  former  is  to  identify  the  specific  classes  for  DSs,  such  as  bare  soil, 
ground and the sparse vegetation areas. The latter is to refine the candidates. DSs are typically 

13 Terrafirma, User guide 

14  Source :  Núria  Devanthéry,  Michele  Crosetto,  Oriol  Monserrat,  María  Cuevas-González  and  Bruno  Crippa, 

An approach to Persistent Scatterer Interferometry, Journal of remote sensing, 2014 

 
 
 
                                                 
identified  from  homogeneous  ground,  scattered  outcrops,  debris  flows,  non-cultivated  lands 
and desert areas. 

Figure 5: Distinction between PS and DS in SAR data (Source: Tre-Altamira) 

2.4. Examples of applications of product using InSAR 

InSAR  technologies  to  monitor  Ground  Motion  are  being  used  for  several  types  of 
applications.  The  following  examples  are  not  exhaustive  but  shows  the  diversity  of 
applications derived from this technology. 

Seismologic and volcanic studies 
InSAR  can  be  used  to  measure  tectonic  deformation  such  as  ground  movements  due  to 
earthquakes.  It  was  first  used  for  the  1992  Landers  earthquake  in  California,  but  has  since 
been utilised extensively for a wide variety of earthquakes all over the world (e.g. 1999 Izmir 
and  2003  Bam  earthquakes  which  were  extensively 
studied thanks to InSAR data). InSAR can also be used 
in a variety of volcanic settings, including deformation 
associated  with  eruptions,  inter-eruption  strain  caused 
by  changes 
in  magma  distribution  at  depth, 
gravitational  spreading  of  volcanic  edifices,  and 
volcano-tectonic  deformation  signals.  Early  work  on 
volcanic  InSAR  included  studies  on  Mount  Etna,  and 
Kilauea,  with  many  more  volcanoes  being  studied  as 
the field developed. The technique is now widely used 
for  academic  research  into  volcanic  deformation, 
although its use as an operational monitoring technique 
for  volcano  observatories  has  been  limited  by  issues 
such  as  orbital  repeat  times,  lack  of  archived  data, 
coherence and atmospheric errors. 

co-seismic 
co-seismic 
Figure 
Figure 
interferogram for the Landers earthquake 
interferogram for the Landers earthquake 
(Source:  Satellite  Remote  Sensing 
in 
(Source:  Satellite  Remote  Sensing 
in 
Seismology – Andrew A. Tronin) 
Seismology – Andrew A. Tronin) 

Observed 
Observed 

6: 
2: 

Subsidence and Landslide monitoring 
Ground  subsidence  from  a  variety  of  causes  has  been 
successfully  measured  using  InSAR,  in  particular 
subsidence  caused  by  oil  or  water  extraction  from 
subsurface  mining  and 
underground 

reservoirs, 

19 

No dataPS (Permanent Scatterers)DS (Distributed Scatterers) 
 
 
 
 
 
collapse  of  old  mines15.  Thus,  InSAR  has  become  an  indispensable  tool  to  satisfactorily 
address  many  subsidence  studies.  Nevertheless,  InSAR  technique  can  present  some 
limitations when applied to landslides especially in case of fast moving landslides.  

Sentinel-1 is currently used to monitor landslides in the Alps region with ESA’s Geohazards 
Exploitation  Platform  (GEP)  that  can  produce  a  velocity  map  of  identified  unstable  areas16. 
Each of the two Sentinel-1 satellites carry a radar sensor that can detect small changes in the 
ground  between  each  overflight,  every  6–12  days.  The  frequency  of  Sentinel-1’s  data 
acquisition  paired  with  GEP’s  processing  tools  may  allow  for  the  quick  detection  of  slope 
instabilities and their consequential risks. 

Ice flow 
Glacial  motion  and  deformation  have  been  successfully  measured  using  satellite 
interferometry.  The  technique  allows  remote,  high-resolution  measurement  of  changes  in 
glacial structure, ice flow, and shifts in ice dynamics, all of which agree closely with ground 
observations. The use of InSAR for ice flow monitoring allows better understanding of glacier 
movement as well as anticipation of avalanches.  

Infrastructure and building monitoring  
InSAR  can  also  be  used  to  monitor  the  stability  of  built  structures,  especially  Very  High 
Resolution  SAR  data  (such  as  derived  from  the  TerraSAR-X  StripMap  mode  or  COSMO-
Skymed  HIMAGE  mode)  are  suitable  for  this  task.  InSAR  is  used  for  monitoring  highway 
and railway settlements, dike stability, forensic engineering and many other uses. 

2.5. The Terrafirma project 

Overview of the Terrafirma project  
The Terrafirma project financed under FP7 was the last European scale project assessing the 
possibility  to  develop  an  operational  pan-European  ground  motion  information  service  in 
support  of  policies  aiming  at  protecting  the  citizens  against  natural  and  man-made  ground 
motion hazards.  

Relevance and organisation of the Terrafirma project 
The  relevance  of  launching  the  Terrafirma  project  was  to  use  satellite  to  monitor  Ground 
Motion  as  it  was  claimed  as  one  of  the  most  practical  way  to  do  so  and  also,  it  was 
highlighted  that  ground-based  surveys  are  time-consuming  and  way  more  expensive  for  the 
monitoring of large areas. Therefore, the utilisation of SAR data and Interferometric Synthetic 
Aperture  Radar  (InSAR)  data  with  PSI  or  conventional  2-pass  differential  InSAR  and  Site-
Specific  InSAR  (corner  reflectors  or  transponders)  were  considered  in  the  frame  of 
Terrafirma. These technologies can be applied to detect and monitor terrain-motion such as 
subsidence, uplift, building stability, landslides, flood risk and seismicity. 

The project was divided in two phases: 

•  In the first phase, the project concentrated on urban areas affected by non-seismic ground 
movement. Terrafirma had a broad user base including geological surveys, engineering 
companies, universities and pan European user federations. 

15 Source: Bateson, L, Lawrence, D, Cigna, F, McCormack, H, Burren, R , Ground Motion in areas of abandoned 

mining: A case study of PSI applied to the Northumberland region of the UK, 2013 

16 Source: ESA: 

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Satellites_monitor_landslide_in_the_Alps 

 
 
                                                 
•  In the second phase, three key user segments were identified as together providing most 
of the users likely to benefit from the service portfolio. Those key users were from the 
Public Sector and from structural, Civil Engineering and Extraction companies. 

Terrafirma had enrolled 51 user organizations during the two phases of the project and was 
afterward  divided  into  three  thematic  lines:  hydrogeology,  tectonics  and  flood  risk.  Several 
companies that were part of Terrafirma develop InSAR products on their own to offer Ground 
Motion monitoring service in Europe and worldwide. 

2.6. Ground Motion within the Copernicus programme 

Source of SAR data in Europe 
The study of Ground Motion thanks to SAR data is possible thanks the combination of several 
data  from  multiple  SAR-capable  satellites.  Such  data  can  come  from  privately  or  public 
owned satellites. In Europe, the main private SAR data distributor in Europe are e-GEOS for 
COSMO-Skymed and Airbus D&S for TerraSAR.  

The  SAR  component  of  the  Copernicus  programme  is  provided  through  the  Sentinel-1 
satellites 
The Sentinel-1 satellites consist of a constellation of two polar-orbiting satellites (Sentinel 1A 
and  1B),  operating  day  and  night  performing  C-band  synthetic  aperture  radar  imaging, 
enabling  them  to  acquire  imagery  regardless  of  the  weather.  They  are  designed  to  provide 
enhanced  revisit  frequency,  coverage,  timeliness  and  reliability  for  operational  services  and 
applications requiring long time series.  

The  Sentinel-1  satellites  provide  an  operational  interferometry  capability  through  stringent 
requirements placed on attitude accuracy, attitude and orbit knowledge, and data-take timing 
accuracy.  The  constellation  will  cover  the  entire  world’s  land  masses  on  a  bi-weekly  basis, 
sea-ice  zones,  Europe's  coastal  zones  and  shipping  routes  on  a  daily  basis  and  open  ocean 
continuously  by  wave  imagettes.  Each  Sentinel-1  satellite  is  expected  to  transmit  Earth 
observation data for at least 7 years and have fuel on-board for 12 years. The flightpath and 
data gathering for the Sentinel-1 satellites are described in the  Sentinel high  level operation 
plan validated annually by ESA and the European Commission. 

The Sentinel-1 data are received on Earth through the Copernicus Core Ground Segment and 
then  processed  by  ESA  through  the  Payload  Data  Ground  Segment  (PDGS).  The  PDGS  is 
operated  by  the  DLR,  in  Oberpfaffenhofen,  Germany.  The  PDGS  is  responsible  for  the 
exploitation  of  instrument  data,  generation,  archiving  and  dissemination  of  Level-1B  and 
Level-2 products to the user community. Those products are detailed hereafter17: 

•  Level 0 consists of unprocessed data which are directly received from the instruments on 
Sentinel-1. It consists of full resolution data that include communications artefacts (e.g. 
noise, internal calibration and echo source packets as well as orbit and attitude 
information). Level-0 products are stored in the long term archives. They can be processed 
to generate any type of product during the mission lifetime and for 25 years after the end 
of the space segment operations. 

•  Level 1 consists of Level 0 data with a layer of processing using different type of 

algorithms. There are two types of Level-1 products: Single Look Complex (SLC) and 
Ground Range Detected (GRD) products. 

•  Level 2 consists of Level 1 data in which geophysical variables are derived. For Sentinel-1 
data, such geophysical products derived can include the following type of components: 

17 https://sentinel.esa.int/web/sentinel/user-guides/sentinel-1-sar/product-types-processing-levels 

21 

 
 
                                                 
◦  Ocean Wind Field (OWI) which estimate of the surface wind speed and direction 

at 10 meters above the surface 

◦  Ocean Swell Spectra (OSW) which is a two-dimensional ocean surface swell 

spectrum and includes an estimate of wind speed and direction per swell spectrum. 

◦  Surface Radial Velocity (RVL) which can be used to measure ocean surface 

currents18. 

Figure  7:  Sentinel-1  acquisition  mode  vs.  Type  of  Core  Copernicus  products  derived 
(Source: PwC, ESA) 

Products  using  radar-based  data  were  developed  in  the  frame  of  the  Copernicus 
programme 
A  partial  Ground  Motion  Spatial  Database  for  Europe  was  created  under  the  Copernicus 
Emergency service: the EMSN030, ground deformation mapping and monitoring by satellite 
based multi-temporal DInSAR technique. One concrete example of utilisation of the product 
was  when  the  Copernicus  Emergency  Management  Service  was  activated  by  the  National 
Directorate  General  for  Disaster  Management  of  Hungary  in  order  to  generate  a  spatial 
database  to  map  and  monitor  sinkholes  and  derive  the  associated  risks  within  the  area  of 
interest (AOI). The following products using Ground Motion were produced: 

•  A deformation map with mean ground velocities covering a timeframe from October 2016 

to February 2017 

•  A Sinkhole & Landslides risks map. 

The radar data from Sentinel-1 is also used by the private sector to create added-value 
products and service 
Sentinel-1  radar  data  is  used  by  commercial  companies  and  derive  for  various  applications 
such  as  the  monitoring  of  landslides,  glaciers  or  ice  in  arctic  or  mountainous  regions. 
Embedded with other source of data (e.g. optical satellite, in-situ), the Sentinel-1 “raw” radar 

18 https://eoda.cls.fr/ 

InterferometricWide swath (IW)Wave (WV)Extra-Wide swath (EW)Stripmap(SM)Level 0Level 1Level 2•Compressed and unfocused SAR raw data received from Sentinel-1•Level-1 SLC products (Single Look Complex)•Level-1 GRD (Ground Range Detected) products•Level-2 Ocean productsincluding OWI(Ocean Wind field) and RVL(Surface Radial Velocity)•Compressed and unfocused SAR raw data received from Sentinel-1•Level-1 SLC products (Single Look Complex)•Level-1 GRD (Ground Range Detected) products•Level-2 Ocean products including OSW(Ocean Swell spectra) OWI(Ocean Wind field) and RVL(Surface Radial Velocity)•Compressed and unfocused SAR raw data received from Sentinel-1•Level-1 SLC products (Single Look Complex)•Level-1 GRD (Ground Range Detected) products•Level-2 Ocean products including OWI(Ocean Wind field) and RVL(Surface Radial Velocity)•Compressed and unfocused SAR raw data received from Sentinel-1•Level-1 SLC products (Single Look Complex)•Level-1 GRD (Ground Range Detected) products•Level-2 Ocean products including OSW(Ocean Swell spectra) OWI(Ocean Wind field) and RVL(Surface Radial Velocity)Acquisition modeType of product 
 
 
 
                                                 
data  but  also  Core  Copernicus  products  can  provide  valuable  inputs  for  the  development  of 
commercial products and services for both the public and private sector. 

Several companies in Europe are indeed using Sentinel-1 data to develop InSAR commercial 
products.  The  Sentinel-1  satellites offer  many  competitive advantages supported  by  the  free 
and open data policy. Those advantages include a frequent revisit time and radar capabilities 
specifically built to observe large areas.  

23 

 
 
 
3. EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL OF “GMSDE”, A NEW COPERNICUS PRODUCT 

3.1. Relevance of developing GSMDE and high level technical definition 

As  mentioned  previously,  the  purpose  of  this  study  is  to  assess  the  relevance  to  develop 
within  the  Copernicus  programme  a  new  product  monitoring  Ground  Motion  over  Europe 
referred as “Ground Motion Spatial Database of Europe” or “GMSDE”. 

A need identified by several countries 
The  potential  need  for  a  Ground  Motion  database  over  continental  Europe  was  already 
identified  by  Member  States  and  highlighted  during  previous  consultations19.  Concepts  of  a 
Ground  Motion  database  have  already  been  proposed  and  initiated  on  local  and  national 
scales.  However,  such  concepts  have  been  focusing  on  dedicated  applications.  In  order  for 
Ground Motion data to become widely utilized, it was highlighted that such products should 
be to the maximum extend designed to be used by several fields (e.g. emergency, oil & gas, 
etc.) and compliant with European and International standard formats. 

Generating economies of scale 
The  type  of  product  considered  by  the  European  Commission  is  a  Ground  Motion  Spatial 
Database  of  Europe  (GMSDE).  Some  European  countries  already  benefit  from  data  storage 
and processing alternatives (e.g. payload data ground segment, national collaborative ground 
segment, local ground segment). The relevance highlighted by the European Commission to 
develop  GMSDE  is  that  it  would  create  an  economy  of  scale,  ensuring  that  the  data  is 
processed once, reducing time, costs and achieving a coordination of results. Such product is 
expected to benefit the end-users, public or private, as well as the Earth Observation industry 
as several derived added-value product and services could be created. 

Creating a user-friendly product 
With  GMSE,  the  European  Commission  is  aiming  to  provide  a  product  with  a  single 
dissemination  service.  Such  service  is  also  aiming  to  provide  an  easy  and  quickly 
understandable visualization browsing data approach for familiar and non-familiar users. 

Technical specifications 
GMSDE will have to be developed with certain technical specifications to answer to the needs 
of  the  user  communities.  High  level  technical  specifications  for  GMSDE  were  identified 
through workshops and consultations: 

  GMSDE would contain all Sentinel-1 images acquired through line-of sight-geometry 
(Ascending  and  Descending  data)  in  order  to  create  a  first  European  ground  motion 
product. Ascending and descending data would be preferably used due to the fact that 
the  movement  of  ground  surface  will  change  in  three  dimensions  (east  /  west,  north 
/south,  up  /  down)  and  InSAR  can  only  detect  one  dimensional  displacement  in  the 
satellite’s line of sight. Therefore, it is impossible to determine in which direction the 
ground surface is evolving from a single SAR interferogram. The determination of the 
direction  can  be  made  by  combining  the  several  data  from  different  directions 
(ascending and descending data).20 

  GMSDE  would  use  time-series  dataset  with  full  spatial  resolution  and  be  based  on 
Persistent  Scatterer  Interferometry  (PSI)  and  Distributed  Scatterer  Interferometry 
(DSI)  time  series  measurements.  This  PSI  and  DSI  processing  will  allow  the 
monitoring of Ground Motion in Europe over built and rural areas. The displacement 

19 http://www.copernicus.eu/news/detecting-ground-motion-thanks-synthetic-aperture-radar 

20 Source: Geospatial information Authority of Japan (GSI), http://vldb.gsi.go.jp/sokuchi/sar/index-e.html 

 
 
                                                 
time series and velocity field coming from those processing will allow the monitoring 
of  Ground  Motion  over  continental  Europe.  An  annual  update  is  believed  to  be 
sufficient for the product and to cover the needs of the user communities. 

3.2. Assessing the industry’s perspective on GMSDE on 6 criteria 

As  required  by  the  European  Commission,  the  benefits  analysis  of  GMSDE  are  assessed 
based on the following 6 criteria: 

Figure 8: Criteria to be considered for analysis 

Figure 9: Description of the 6 criteria 

Criterion 

Description 

 A product is said to be "non-rival" if it can be replicated at close-to-zero cost. 

 If a good is rival, private provision will generally be more efficient. 

 A product must have a large user base if it is to be developed by the 

Copernicus. 

 This criterion would exclude "niche products" that only target a specific sector 

or a small group of users. 

 On the opposite, products that allow for the development (by the users) of 

many higher-level products would easily fulfil this criterion. 

 The user base for the product should span across a large number of member 
states and be in line with the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and cost-
effectiveness. 

 This criterion would typically be fulfilled in the case where a European 

product is required as input into national/local products (e.g. atmosphere, 
climate change or marine models). 

25 

Non RivalGeneralPurposeEuropean Value-addedNo private alternative OverwhelmingpublicinterestLimited additionalcosts123456Perimeter of GMSDENon Rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalueadded3 
 
  
 
 
 
Criterion 

Description 

 The Copernicus services should not develop a new product if some 

companies already provide it or are committed to provide it "effectively, 
affordably and reliably" soon. 

 It is referring to products only that exist already (or that will be offered by 

third parties within an adequate timeframe) independently from the 
Copernicus programme.  

 A private offer would not be considered "effective, affordable and reliable" if 
the company producing abuses of its monopolistic position, or if the product 
requires a reliability than cannot be guaranteed by the private sector (e.g. 
emergency products) 

 If products and services are needed to fulfil a significant public interest 

requirement (e.g. security, continuity, reliability, sensitivity etc.) that they have 
to be retained within the public sector for their provision, these will be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

 The product should not be developed by the Copernicus services if it entails 

significant additional costs compared to the private sector. 

 This criterion would exclude products that would be cheaper to produce with 

a direct procurement between the client and supplier. 

 Products that simply cannot be developed by the private sector (e.g. because 
they require very extensive expertise or funding) would fulfil this criterion.  

3.3. Approach for the consultation 

General approach 
The  assessment  phase  consists  of  stakeholders  and  experts  consultations  in  order  to  gather 
their views on GMSDE. The scoring  is  made  using  a Likert scale on each  of those criteria. 
Most  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  are  representatives  from  the  European  industry 
providing SAR and InSAR products. The consultations were conducted between August and 
September  2017  with  face-to  face  interviews  and  conference  calls.  Each  meeting  lasted 
between 30 minutes and 1 hour with representatives from PwC asking questions to assess the 
opportunity  for  the  potential  development  of  GMSDE.  The  interviews  were  driven  by  a 
standard  list  of  questions  and  complemented  by  an  open  discussion  (See  page  29  for  the 
complete list of questions asked).  

Sample of interviewees 
15  requests  to  private  European  companies  involved  in  SAR  and  InSAR  product  provision 
were sent. Out of those requests, 11 companies accepted to take part in the consultation (two 
companies declined participation and two other did not respond).  

No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5Limitedadditionalcosts6 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure10: Geographical repartition of the stakeholders interviewed 

The  stakeholders  were  asked  to  assess,  according  to  their  perspective,  every  criterion  on  a 
Likert  scale  (strongly  disagree,  disagree,  neutral,  agree,  and  strongly  agree).  This  answers 
were then associated with numerical values in order to assess each criterion in a range from -2 
to  2.  The  gathered  results  were  consolidated  and  an  average  grade  for  each  criterion  was 
made.  The  Pearson’s  standard  deviation  was  also  calculated  for  each  criterion  in  order  to 
measure the dispersion of the results. 

27 

Austria (1)Belgium (1)Italy (3)Netherlands (2)Spain (1)Switzerland (2)UK (1) 
 
 
 
4. RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 

4.1. Overall results of the consultation 

During  the  stakeholder  consultation  process,  the  study  team  assessed  the  6  criteria  and 
obtained the following results:  

Figure 11: Results of the consultation: scoring of the criteria 

Most of the stakeholders have positive views on GMSDE 
Overall,  all  the  stakeholders  have  in  average  a  very  positive  views  regarding  GMSDE.  The 
non-rival,  overwhelming  public  interest  and  general  purpose  criteria  obtained  high  scores 
ranging from 1.1 to 1.5 meaning that they agree of strongly agree that GMSDE would fulfil 
those  criteria.  The  limited  additional  costs  and  European  value-added  criteria  have  score 
ranging  from  0.7  and  0.9  suggesting  that  the  interviewed  stakeholders  mostly  agree  that 
GMSDE would fulfil those criteria. 

Interviewees are more cautious regarding the No private alternative criteria  
Regarding  the  no-private  alternative  criteria,  the  views  of  the  stakeholders  are  more 
fragmented.  The  final  rating  for  the  criteria  is  on  average  slightly  below  0  meaning  that 
stakeholders are neutral concerning the fulfilment of this criterion.  

4.2. Deep dive on the insights gathered on each criterion 

Non rival 

Context 
Due  to  the  Copernicus  Open  data  policy  defined  in  the  Copernicus  Regulation  of  2014 
(Regulation  (EU)  No  377/2014),  the  Copernicus  Regulation  establishes  the  Copernicus 
programme,  sets  its  objectives,  and  specifies  the  governance  as  well  as  the  funding  for  the 
2014-2020 period.  The preamble of  the Regulation  also specifies that “Copernicus data and 
Copernicus information should be available freely and openly to support the Digital Agenda 
for Europe, as referred to in the Commission Communication of 26 August 2010 entitled: “A 
Digital  Agenda  for  Europe”.  This  regulation  makes  every  Sentinel  data  and  Copernicus 
product available freely and openly with the exception of the following restrictions:  

  When dissemination can threaten the EU’s security interests, 

 
 
 
  When it would affect the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 

the EU, especially regarding individuals’ right to privacy, 

  When service disruption would not allow all users to access the data and information 

at once21. 

There are, on the other hand, neither restrictions in terms of commercial or non-commercial 
re-use of the Copernicus data, nor any geographical and time restrictions. 

Figure 12: Score of the “Non-rival” criterion 

Views of the European industry 
The score of the non-rival criterion is on average 1.5 on a scale from -2 to 2 meaning that the 
stakeholders interviewed strongly agree that this potential product will follow the rules of the 
Copernicus Regulation and be accessible on a free and open manner. Furthermore, according 
to  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  EO  data  products  can  be  unlimitedly  supplied,  and  thus  by 
definition non-rival. The dispersion of the results is one of the lowest among all the 6 criteria 
assessed meaning that this perspective is shared by the respondents. 

General purpose 

Context 
The Copernicus Core products are developed to be used for the public authorities as well as 
serve  as  inputs  products  for  the  industry,  as  intermediate-users,  to  develop  new  types  of 
added-value  products  or  services  for  various  user  communities  and  therefore,  develop  the 
downstream  market  related  to  EO-based  products  and  services.  The  development  of  new 
Copernicus  Core  products  should  then  to  the  maximum  extend,  be  easily  derived  by 
intermediate-users for such purpose. 

21  Source:  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1159/2013  of  12  July  2013  supplementing  Regulation 
(EU)  No  911/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  European  Earth  monitoring 
programme  (GMES)  by  establishing  registration  and  licensing  conditions  for  GMES  users  and  defining 
criteria for restricting access to GMES dedicated data and GMES service information, Chapter 3, Article 11 
to 16 

29 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theNon-rival criterion ? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs61.5Out of 11 respondentsStandard Deviationσ = 0.50 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 13: Score of the “General purpose” criterion 

Views of the European industry 
The General purpose criterion is scored with 1.1 on a scale from -2 to 2 showing that, to some 
extent,  the  industry  has  a  positive  perception  on  the  user  reach  of  GMSDE  and  potential 
derived products by the community of intermediate-users. As for the non-rival criterion, the 
dispersion  of  the  results  is  one  of  the  lowest  among  all  the  6  criteria assessed  showing  that 
this  perspective  is  shared  by  all  the  respondents.  For  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  the  end-
user  communities  of  GMSDE  or  of  any  product  and  service  derived  from  it  would  surely 
incorporate several types of public and private entities such as geodesic institutes for tectonic 
plates  monitoring  and  local  governments  for  urban  monitoring  or  critical  infrastructure 
monitoring.  Other  types  of  actors  such  as  emergency  services  of  first  responders  could  be 
interested by such products.  

The  interviewees  also  foresaw  the  benefits  to  the  private  sector  as  companies  could  be 
intermediate-users of GMSDE and develop derived added-value products or services thanks 
to  further  processing  of  GMSDE  or  other  in-house  analytical  layers.  The  stakeholders 
interviewed  confirmed  that  Level  0  SAR-data  are  needed  as  inputs  for  the  development  of 
their  own  products.  In  addition,  Level  0  SAR-data  is  time-consuming  and  costly  to  obtain. 
Therefore, if GMSDE is directly provided by Copernicus, the industry could benefit from it. 
The private sector also highlighted that to effectively support companies in the development 
of quality products, GMSDE should have “well-balanced” technical characteristics to be able 
to address to the better extend the needs of the end-users and also be exploitable by the private 
sector to provide a range of derived products. 

EU value added 

Context 
The EU value added criteria means that GMSDE should be compatible with the EU principles 
of subsidiarity, proportionality, and cost-effectiveness. In areas in which the EU does not have 
an  exclusive  competence,  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  aims  to  safeguard  the  ability  of  the 
Member States to take actions and authorises the intervention by the EU when the objectives 
of  an  action  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States  alone  but  can  be  better 
achieved  at  Union  level,  “by  reason  of  the  scale  and  effects  of  the  proposed  action”.  The 
purpose of including a reference to this principle in the EU Treaties ensures that powers are 
exercised  as  close  to  the  citizens  as  possible,  in  accordance  with  the  proximity  principle 
referred to in the Article 10(3) of the TEU. 

The principles of proportionality regulates the exercise of powers by the EU. It seeks to set 
actions taken by EU institutions within specified bounds. Under this rule, the action of the EU 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theGeneral purpose criterion ? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs61.1Out of 11 respondentsStandard Deviationσ = 0.53 
 
 
must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. In other words, 
the content and form of the action must be aligned with the aim pursued. 

The  principle  of  cost-effectiveness  means  that  the  costs  of  producing  Copernicus  products 
must  be  in  proportion  to  their  merits  and  that  resources  must  be  used  optimally.  Where 
appropriate,  the  information  to  be  collected  must  be  extracted  from  available  records  or 
sources. The EU value added criterion means also that the user base for the development of a 
new Copernicus product should span across a large number of Member States. 

Figure 14: Score of the “European value-added” criterion 

Views of the European industry 
The rating for the European value-added criterion was assessed by the stakeholders at 0.7 on a 
scale  from  -2  to  2.  It  means  that  in  general,  the  companies  interviewed  agree  that  GMSDE 
would  benefit  to  a  wide  pan-European  user  community  spanning  across  a  large  number  of 
Member States with noticeably a cost-effectiveness principle. Nevertheless the dispersion of 
the results shows that not all the respondents agree as among the 11 companies interviewed, 
one disagree with the fact that GMSDE could fulfil the European value-added criterion.  

Taking  the  average  score  of  0.7,  in  general,  the  companies  interviewed  acknowledge  that 
GMSDE  could  positively  provide  inputs  for  derived  products  that  could  have  a  national  or 
local  coverage.  Stakeholders  also  highlighted  that  GMSDE  could  also  support  the 
differentiating  value  of  the  European  Union  in  comparison  to  other  regions  in  the  Earth 
Observation  domain  in  which  the  European  industry,  especially  in  the  field  of  SAR  and 
InSAR data is one of the world leader. 

No private alternative 

Context 
The  no-private  alternative  criterion  aims  at  preventing  the  development  of  new  Copernicus 
product  which  can  compete  against  the  European  private  sector.  The  relevance  is  that  the 
Entrusted  Entities  should  not  encourage  the  development  of  a  new  product  if  private 
companies  already  provide  or  are  committed  to  provide  the  product  "effectively,  affordably 
and reliably" soon.  

This is referring to products only that already exist (or that are going to be rolled out by third 
parties  within  an  adequate  timeframe)  independently  from  the  Copernicus  programme.  A 
private  offer  would  not  be  considered  "effective,  affordable  and  reliable"  if  the  company 
producing  it  abuses  of  its  monopolistic  position,  or  if  the  product  requires  a  reliability  than 
cannot be guaranteed by the private sector (e.g. emergency products). 

31 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theEuropean value-added criterion ? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs60.7Out of 11 respondentsStandard Deviationσ = 0.75 
 
 
Figure 15: Score of the “No private alternative” criterion22 

Views of the European industry 
Overall,  the  stakeholders  rated  the  no  private  alternative  at  0  on  a  scale  from  -2  to  2.  The 
average score shows that stakeholders are neutral concerning the fulfilment by GMSDE of the 
No private alternative criterion. However, the dispersion of the results is the highest among 
the  6  criteria.  4  companies  indicated  that  they  either  strongly  disagree  or  disagree,  3 
companies remained neutral (or did not answer the question) and 4 companies agreed with a 
score of 1.0. 

This assessment illustrates that part of the industry claimed that a GMSDE-like product could 
be  offered  by  the  private  sector  in  Europe  and  that  even  similar  products  or  technology  are 
already  being  offered  using  Sentinel-1  data  by  a  significant  number  of  European  EO 
companies. 

Nevertheless  some  of  the  stakeholders  that  agreed  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  No  private 
alternative  of  GMSDE  stated  that  the  coverage  over  continental  Europe  and  its  other  high-
level technical characteristics (e.g. Level-0 product) would not be offered by the private sector 
as no direct business could be generated from it. Other respondents also stated that an annual 
update frequency could lead to a competition if companies are offering similar products. As 
an  alternative  to  the  annual  update,  those  respondents  were  taking  the  example  of  the  HR 
Layer offered by the European Environment Agency in the Copernicus the Land service with 
only an update every four years limiting the competition with the private sector. The grade of 
-0.1  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  GMSDE  would  be  updated  every  year.  Longer 
updates would turn the No private alternative criteria into positive. 

Another  augment  stated  by  the  industry  regarding  the  risk  of  GMSDE  competing  with  the 
private  sector  is  that  other  Ground  Motion  databases  are  already  being  developed  for  some 
EU Member States (e.g. Italy) by the private sector. 

One  element  highlighted  by  the  industry  in  favour  of  GMSDE  is  that  the  product  could 
became a reference data that can help to raise awareness about Ground Motion applications, 
create a harmonized reference database across Europe and therefore further expand the market 
base. A second element is that GMSDE could lead to the creation of complementary products 

22 Please note that the mathematical average for criteria no.4 is -0.05 (see appendix B) and has been rounded to -

0.1 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theNo private alternative? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs6-0.1 
 
 
 
                                                 
with, for example, different imagery resolutions. Low to Medium resolutions (Sentinel data) 
could be offered through GMSDE and higher resolution imagery with higher revisit time over 
areas of interest for customers could be provided by the private sector. In the case where only 
Sentinel data would be processed for the generation of the GMSDE, industry would see it as a 
guarantee  for  not  interfering  with  its  high  resolution  products  and  allow  them  to  develop 
differentiating solutions. 

Overwhelming public interest 

Context 
The overwhelming public interest criterion is aiming to measure the benefits to the public (the 
Citizens)  generated  by  the  assessed  products.  The  criterion  should  also  assess  if,  due  to  the 
significant benefits toward the public, the provision of the product should remain within the 
public sector. 

Figure 16: Score of the “Overwhelming public interest” criterion 

Views of the European industry 
The  stakeholders  interviewed  agree  that  GMSDE  would  fulfil  the  Overwhelming  public 
interest criterion with a score of 1.3 on a scale from -2 to 2. The dispersion of the results are 
low showing that respondents unanimously agreed with the fulfilment of this criterion. 

The  interviewees  highlighted  that  GMSDE-type  of  products  would  be  needed  for  critical 
purposes, especially for the public sector. Examples used by the respondents to back-up this 
statement  included  the  need  to  monitor  rising  water  level  and  state  of  the  coast  erosion,  in 
countries  such  as  the  Netherlands  where  part  of  the  territory  is  below  the  sea  level.  In  the 
Switzerland, due to the frequent landslide in the Alps, Ground Motion products are often used 
by  public  authorities  to  monitor  the  probability  of  landslide  events  and  therefore  warn  and 
protect  the  population.  However  respondents  also  stressed  that  GMSDE  would  be  partially 
technology driven and with regards to the current maturity and high expertise of the European 
EO  industry,  the  need  to  retain  the  development  of  GMSDE  within  the  public  sector  is  not 
necessary. 

Limited additional costs 

Context 
The limited additional costs criterion means that the product should not be developed within 
the  Copernicus  programme  if  it  entails  significant  additional  costs,  compared  to  the  private 
sector. This criterion would exclude products that would be cheaper to produce with a direct 

33 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theOverwhelming public interestcriterion? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs61.3Out of 11 respondentsStandard Deviationσ = 0.53 
 
 
 
procurement between the client and supplier. Products that simply cannot be developed by the 
private sector (e.g. because they require very extensive expertise or funding) would fulfil this 
criterion.  This  criterion  aims  at  ensuring  that  the  development  of  new  Copernicus  product 
does not entail budget overrun or new funding for the Copernicus services as a whole except 
if  the  new  Copernicus  product  is  very  sensitive  or  if  it  requires  the  development  of  new 
technologies. 

Figure 17: Score of the “Limited Additional costs” criterion 

Views of the European industry 
The  stakeholders  consulted  agree  that  GMSDE  would  fulfil  the  Limited  Additional  costs 
criterion with an average score of 0.9 on a scale from -2 to 2. The dispersion of the results is 
noticeable with answer spamming from “Neutral” to “Strongly Agree”. 

Stakeholders  highlighted  that  most  of  them  have  the  technology  to  provide  a  GMSDE-like 
product as the large scale processing of Sentinel-1 data to a level 0 products is already done 
by several European EO players including ESA and industry. Therefore, the industry claimed 
that  non-existing  or  limited  investment  is  needed  to  develop  a  similar  product  (e.g.  no 
particular  need  to  have  additional  H2020  funding).  However,  according  to  the  stakeholders 
interviewed, there is no arithmetic economy of scale between the price of one frame and the 
price for the processing of more than “the estimated 300 frames required23” by this potential 
new  product  in  order  to  cover  the  whole  continent.  However,  due  to  the  fact  that  previous 
years of GMSDE results would be stored within the framework of Copernicus and therefore 
available for free, economy of scale can be achieved. 

23 The study and consultation are based on the assumption that the GMSDE results of "previous" years would be 

stored for free. 

Do you agree that GMSDE would fulfil theLimited Additional costs criterion? NegativeassessmentPositive assessmentStronglydisagreeDisagreeNeutralStronglyagreeAgreeNon-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs60.9Out of 11 respondentsStandard Deviationσ = 0.80 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. CONCLUSION 

With 5 out of 6 criteria being assessed as fulfilled, the overall assessment of the potential 
GMSDE product is positive.  

Figure 18: Overall fulfilment of the 6 criteria 

According to the stakeholder consultation, several benefits could result from the development 
of the GMSDE. Those potential benefits encompass a large array of applications. 

First  of  all,  the  development  of  GMSDE  could  help  foster  the  awareness  around  Sentinel-1 
data  and  InSAR  technologies.  The more  applications  using  SAR  and  InSAR  data,  the  more 
potential technology development is going to happen. The availability of Ground Motion data 
over  all  continental  Europe  could  help  public  authorities  as  well  as  commercial  end-users 
understand the potentiality of those technologies and increase the demand for such products. 

The  production  by  the  European  Commission  of  GMSDE  could  also  help  the  definition  of 
reference  standard  for  the  overall  industry  and  create  homogeneity  and  legitimacy  across 
Europe  for  InSAR  technology.  However,  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  potential  drawbacks 
could come from this product. The main drawbacks envision by the stakeholders interviewed 
is the potential hit to the commercial market that is providing InSAR products. GMSDE is on 
many levels very similar to what is already offered by the commercial players in Europe and 
therefore the open and free availability of those data could hinder the willingness of end-users 
to pay for those data. 

The availability of Open and free data regarding Ground Motion could also help the industry 
in  the  processing  of  other  products.  The  processing  power  required  for  the  production  of 
GMSDE  could  help  the  price  of  cloud  processing  to  go  down  and  enable  the  industry  to 
increase  their  margins.  The  potential  development  of  a  complementary  offer  between  low 
resolution and high resolution could also push the industry to specialize. 

Finally,  the  European  Union  being  one  of  the  worldwide  leader  of  SAR  and  InSAR 
technologies, the development of GMSDE could help foster the European leadership for those 
technologies. 

35 

Non-rival1GeneralPurpose2Europeanvalue-added3No privatealternative 4Overwhelmingpublicinterest5LimitedAdditional costs6FulfilledFulfilledFulfilledNeutralFulfilledFulfilled 
 
 
Interview guidelines 

Presentation 

Presentation of the team: 

“PwC has a dedicated team for space based in Paris…” 

“We do studies for the EC, ESA and for the private sector” 

Presentation of the objectives: 

  Assessment of the opportunity of the development of a new Copernicus Core product 

  Ground  Motion  Spatial  Database  for  Europe  (GMSDE)  with 

the  following 

characteristics: 

o  Sentinel-1  Level  0  Persistent  Scatterer  (PS)  and  Distributed  Scatterer  (DS) 

processing 

o  Displacement time series, velocity field, ascending and descending data, Line-

of-Sight geometry, 

o  Annual update over continental Europe 

Main information 

I. 

Can you present your company? 

  Ask General questions about the company (e.g. size, revenues, products) 

  Ask type of Ground Motion product provided (if company) or used (if user) 

  Ask  how  they  are  involved  in  the  Copernicus  Programme?  (e.g.  intermediate  users, 

providers, use of Sentinels data, etc.) 

Questions on the fulfilment of the criteria 

PwC interviewer: 

Say that the Commission will decide if product will be launch or not based on a set of criteria 
that the stakeholders will assess: 

1.  Non-rival criteria 

2.  General purpose criteria 

3.  European value-added criteria 

4.  No private alternative criteria 

5.  Overwhelming public interest criteria 

6.  Limited additional costs criteria 

According to you, is “GMSDE” fulfilling the “non-rival” criterion? 

II. 
A  product  is  said  to  be  "non-rival"  if  it  can  be  enjoyed  or  consumed  by  many  consumers 
simultaneously and therefore without rivalry, e.g. cable television 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

III. 

According to you, is “GMSDE” fulfilling the “general purpose” criterion? 

 
 
 
The product should allow the development (by the users) of many other higher-level products. 
A product must have a large user base if it is to be developed by the Copernicus 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

According to you, is “GMSDE” fulfilling the “European value-added” criterion? 

IV. 
The  product  should  create  economy  of  scale  through  the  member  states.  The  product  could 
create differentiating value for the EU vs. other regions. 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

V. 

According to you, is “GMSDE” fulfilling the “no private alternative” criterion? 

The product should not be developed if some companies in Europe are already provide it or 
are committed to provide it "effectively, affordably and reliably" soon. 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

VI. 

According  to  you,  is  “GMSDE”  fulfilling  the  “overwhelming  public  interest” 
criterion? 

The value-added of this product should have significant public interest to be retained in the 
public sector for the provision of the product. 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

According to you, is “GMSDE” fulfilling the “limited additional costs” criterion? 

VII. 
The  product  should  not  be  developed  by  the  Copernicus  services  if  it  entails  significant 
additional costs, compared to what the private sector can provide. 

Strongly disagree (-2) 

Disagree (-1) 

Neutral (0) 

Agree (1) 

Strongly agree (2) 

Other questions 

VIII.  What benefits or drawbacks do you see coming from this new product? 

IX.  Which  already  existing  infrastructure  could  help  leverage  the  development  of 

this new product? 

X.  Do you want to add something else? 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Detailed results of the interviews 

Figure 19: Detailed results of the interviews - Scoring of the criteria 

Company 

Non Rival 

General 
purpose 

European 
value-added 

No private 
alternative 

Overwhelming 
public interest 

Limited 
additional 
costs 

Company 1 

Company 2 

Company 3 

Company 4 

Company 5 

Company 6 

Company 7 

Company 8 

Company 9 

Company 10 

Company 11 

Standard 
Deviation 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

2,0 

2,0 

2,0 

1,0 

2,0 

2,0 

1,0 

0,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

2,0 

1,0 

1,0 

2,0 

1,5 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

0,0 

1,0 

-0,1 

1,0 

0,0 

2,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

-2,0 

-1,0 

-1,0 

-1,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,5 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

2,0 

1,0 

0,5 

1,0 

1,0 

1,0 

2,0 

2,0 

2,0 

1,0 

0,0 

2,0 

2,0 

0,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

1,0 

2,0 

1,0 

1,0 

0,50 

0,53 

0,75 

1,01 

0,53 

0,80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
5
-
1
7
-
1
6
7
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

        doi: 10.2873/589