Impact assessment study on the use of Galileo for critical infrastructures that depend on satellite navigation for timing and synchronisation : executive summary.
Date: 2020-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, cost-benefit analysis, critical infrastructure security, provision of services, report, risk management, satellite navigation, technological independence, telecommunications industry

Impact assessment study on the Use 
of Galileo for Critical Infrastructures 
that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation 
for  Timing  and  Synchronisation  – 

736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165  implementing  Framework 

Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Client:  Directorate-General  Defence  Industry  and  Space  (DEFIS)  –  Unit  DEFIS.B.1. 

Development and Applications 

Brussels, 13 July 2020 

Submitted by: 

 VVA

 Ecorys

In cooperation with: 

 FDC (subcontractor)

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. 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this 

publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

© European Union, 2020 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  The reuse policy of European 

Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the 

European Union (*), permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

ISBN 978-92-76-20810-5  

doi: 10.2889/03012 

Impact assessment study on the Use of Galileo for Critical Infrastructures that depend on Satellite Navigation for 

3 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
Disclaimer 

This report has been produced by Ecorys, Valdani Vicari & Associati and FDC under a contract with 
the  European  Commission.  Any  views  expressed  in  this  report  are  not  necessarily  those  of  the 
European Commission. 
The information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the customer 
for whom this report was prepared. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the matter 
presented in this report is relevant, accurate and up to date, Ecorys, Valdani Vicari & Associati and 
FDC cannot accept any liability for any error or omission, or reliance on part or all of the content in 
another context. 

Framework Contract No: 575/PP/2016/FC 
Specific Contract No: 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 

Prepared By: Ecorys, Valdani Vicari & Associati and FDC

Impact assessment study on the Use of Galileo for Critical Infrastructures that depend on Satellite Navigation for 

5 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Some critical infrastructure identified under Council Directive 2008/114/EC rely on satellite navigation 

(GNSS) for timing and synchronisation across the European Union. This includes infrastructure around 

energy,  finance,  telecommunications,  and  transportation,  with  aviation  having  particular 

significance. The table below provides an overview of the specific applications as well as the preferred 

Galileo service for which Europe needs to pay particular attention to ensure that vulnerabilities do not 

disrupt important services. 

Critical 

Applications 

Preferred EGNSS service 

infrastructure 

Energy 

Finance 

Telecom 

Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) 

Galileo OSNMA 

Bank and stock exchange application 

Galileo OSNMA 

Digital Cellular Network (DCN) (incl. 

Galileo OSNMA 

Small Cells) and Satcom 

Telecom 

Public-Switched Telephone Network 

Galileo OS 

(PSTN) 

Telecom 

Aviation 

Professional Mobile Radio (PMR) 

Galileo OSNMA 

Air transport radar synchronisation 

Galileo OS 

Table 1: Critical infrastructure assessed by the study, their respective applications and preferred EGNSS 

service 

Given  the  potentially  huge  costs  for  even  a  short-term  failure  in  any  of  these  infrastructures,  the 

European Union is looking to assess how to reduce the likelihood of a failure causes by both natural 

and/or manmade  causes.  At the  same  time,  given increased  geopolitical  polarisation and  diverging 

technical  standards,  dependency  on  foreign  GNSS  technologies  can  also  be  considered  essential. 

Different policy options, non-regulatory and regulatory, are available to the European Commission, with 

regulatory action the best available option to achieving the goals of protecting critical infrastructure. 

1 

Problem  definition,  policy  objectives  and  identification  of  policy 
options 

1.1  Problem definition 

The  GNSS  timing  and  synchronisation  sector is  characterised  by  a  few  large  market  players  and  a 

limited market. Most players originate outside of the EU, meaning critical infrastructures rely on non-

European  systems,  primarily  American  GPS.  These  state-of-the  art  GNSS  systems  are  subject  to 

vulnerabilities,  such  as  intentional  spoofing  attacks.  The  risks  of  threats  have  increased  and  are 

expected to grow further, an issue on which many critical infrastructure operators and end users are 

unaware.  

These  vulnerabilities  can  result  in  disruptions  that  are  critical  to  Europe.  Given  the  high 

interconnectedness of European critical infrastructures, such outages could spill over from one Member 

State to the other, escalating these negative impacts further. As such, Europe has an important role to 

play. 

6 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  systems  (EGNSS)  such  as  Galileo,  and  especially  its  dedicated  authentication  services, 

would mitigate disruptions by increasing the robustness and resilience of the signal. However, many 

actors  are  unaware  of  the  potential  added  value that  EGNSS  could  bring  and  they  believe  that  the 

costs of EGNSS-enabled devices outweigh the benefits.  

In addition, EGNSS would decrease the dependency on non-European systems, enabling European 

critical  infrastructures  to  react  and  mitigate  potential  disruptions  independently  to  foreign  governed 

technologies. Furthermore, an EU intervention or initiative could provide added value by ensuring a 

unified approach to the differential and fragmented use of different GNSS systems. 

1.2  Policy objectives and identification of policy options 

The overall general objectives that a policy intervention could achieve are: 

 

Increasing the resilience and robustness of critical infrastructures; and 

  Decreasing  the  dependency  of  European  critical  infrastructures  on  third-country  systems  or 

technologies.  

With regards to GNSS timing and synchronisation, two specific objectives are derived that could help 

achieve the general objectives: 

 

 

Increase the awareness of the EGNSS added value; and 

Increase the market uptake of EGNSS. 

Four policy options can help to achieve these objectives. A core focus of these options lies in how best 

to  increase  the  market  uptake  of  EGNSS,  given  that  the  ultimate  objective  of  raising  awareness  is 

linked to the increased uptake itself. This follows the recommendation of having a tailored objective 

outside of raising awareness in order to achieve a successful awareness campaign. The different policy 

options analysed are: 

  Policy option 1: Define and implement awareness actions on Galileo and EGNOS’ ability 

to  bring  improved  resilience  to  timing  and  synchronisation  operations:  Targeted 

awareness  campaigns  could  be  implemented  that  focus  on  the  added  value  of  EGNSS,  in 

particular Galileo, especially in terms of increased robustness and resilience; 

  Policy  option  2:  Undertake  specific  industrial  or  R&D  support:  While  R&D  support  is 

already provided in general with regards to EGNSS, no specific calls or targeted actions were 

made  regarding  timing  and  synchronisation  of  critical  infrastructures,  which  could  be 

implemented;  

  Policy  option  3:  Commission  recommendation  on  the  use  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  for 

critical Infrastructures:  The European Commission would issue a Recommendation on the 

use of EGNSS for timing and synchronisation in critical infrastructures; and 

  Policy  option  4:  EU  legislation  on  the  use  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  for  critical 

infrastructures or amendment of existing legislation to mandate the use of Galileo and 

EGNOS  in  critical  infrastructures  that  depend  on  satellite  navigation  for  timing  and 

synchronisation:  This  policy  option  represents  the  only  regulatory  option  of  all  four,  which 

could mandate requirements for GNSS timing and synchronisation of critical infrastructures. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  figure  below  provides  an  overview  of  all  the  interlinkages  between  drivers,  problems,  policy 

objectives and options. 

Figure 1: Problem tree of the impact assessment study 

2 

Impacts and cost and benefits of policy options 

2.1  Policy  option  1:  Define  and  implement  awareness  actions  on  Galileo  and 
EGNOS’  ability  to  bring  improved  resilience  to  timing  and  synchronisation 
operations 

Policy option 1 can generate indirect positive impacts and support other strategic objectives of the EU 

rather than the specific objectives set out in the study (increase uptake). At the same time, the risk of 

market  fragmentation  due  to  differential  uptake  of  EGNSS  still  remains.  Nevertheless,  awareness 

actions  are  expected  to  somewhat  increase  the  uptake  of  EGNSS  services  due  to  the  increased 
awareness of EGNSS advantages (an estimated 10% increase).1 These potential impacts have been 

summarised in the table below. 

Type 

Key positive impacts  

Key negative impacts 

Economic 

 

Increased  awareness  expected  to  slightly 

  Slow speed or differential rate 

impacts 

boost uptake (+10%) 

of implementation  

  Avoided  costs  of  revenue  losses  due  to 

  Slowed-down 

market 

outage of public services for CI operators 

penetration rate resulting from 

  Potential  to  generate  profit  from  EGNSS 

the 

differential 

rate 

of 

enabled receivers for economic operators 

implementation 

  B2B networking (in particular if awareness 

  Market 

fragmentation 

campaigns  are 

linked 

to  business 

resulting from the two impacts 

above 

1 Uptake increase of 10% applied based on expert analysis and stakeholder feedback 

8 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
Type 

Key positive impacts  

Key negative impacts 

Social 

impacts 

development  as 

in 

the  case  study) 

  Costs 

associated 

with 

[indirect] 

upgrading 

receivers 

to  be 

  Technological  innovation  (in  particular  if 

EGNSS-enabled  or  higher 

awareness  campaigns  are  linked  to  R&I 

costs  for  economic  operators 

support as in the case study) [indirect] 

and  potentially  end  users  if 

  Capacity building (training) (in particular if 

transferred  down  the  value 

awareness  campaigns  are 

linked 

to 

chain 

targeted  training  activities  as  in  the  case 

study) [indirect] 

  Wider society: greater stabilisation due to 

  Lower  uptake  of  EGNSS 

mitigation of societal damages caused by 

services  leading  to  a  risk  of 

outages of critical infrastructures 

losing 

the  opportunity 

for 

  Avoided loss of leisure activities relying on 

reaching 

full  potential  of 

CI  services,  avoided 
income 
dependent  on  CI  services2;  increased 

loss  of 

independence and resilience 

  Unequal access to the service 

compared to Option 0 

due to fragmented uptake  

  Community-level  change  and  increased 

  Potentially  higher  services 

awareness 

of  EGNSS 

advantages 

costs 

through 

transfer  of 

[indirect] 

receiver costs down the value 

chain  (expected  to  be  lower 

than for Option 0)  

Table 2:Potential impacts of Policy Option 1 

The costs and benefits of policy option 1 would be overall positive for all infrastructure domains, with 

the exception of telecommunications where the benefits depend on the application. The results of the 

CBA on policy option 1 are the following: 

Sector/application 

Preferred 

Total 

Total 

NPV 

cluster 

EGNSS 
Service3 

Discounted 

Discounted  

Costs 

Benefits 

Telecom  –  DCN,  small 

Galileo 

cells and Satcom 

OSNMA 

Telecom – PSTN 

Galileo OS 

Telecom – PMR 

Energy – PMU 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

Finance  –  Bank  and 

Galileo 

stock exchange 

OSNMA 

TOTAL 2020-2035 

3.5 million 

7.7 million 

4.3 million 

≈ 
10.7 million 

≈ 
0.3 million 

≈ 
-10.3 million 

0.9 million 

1,227.2 million 

1,226.3 

million 

2.4 million 

12.1 million 

9.6 million 

17.4 million 

1,247.4 million 

1,230.0 

million 

Table 3: Net Present Value of Policy Option 2: Net Present Value of Policy Option 1 (in EUR) 

Stakeholder consulted for this assessment largely supported policy option 1, more than 85% in support, 

both within the interviews and the OPC.  

2 Detailed explanation of avoided costs of outage can be found in section 2.2. 
3 Preferred EGNSS service per CI explained in section 2.2.5. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2  Policy option 2: Undertake specific industrial or R&D support 

While  there  are  existing  R&D programmes  that cover  EGNSS  in  general, none  specifically  address 

timing  and  synchronisation.  Industrial  and  R&D  support  is  expected  to  accelerate  EGNSS  service 

uptake by 20% compared. Many positive impacts are indirect, in the sense that they bring benefits to 

stakeholders that are not directly linked to the objectives of this study. For instance, the GNSS timing 

and  synchronisation  market  is  characterised  by  a  lack  of  SMEs  in  the  market.  An  indirect  positive 

impact  of  policy  option  2  could  be  the  creation  of  potential  additional  business  for  SMEs.  These 

potential general impacts are summarised in the Table below. 

Type 

Key positive impacts  

Key negative impacts 

Economic 

 

Innovation support expected to 

  Slow 

speed  or  differential 

rate  of 

impacts 

push uptake by 20% 

implementation  

  Avoided  costs  of 

revenue 

  Slowed-down  market  penetration 

rate 

losses  due  to  outage  of  public 

resulting 

from 

the  differential 

rate  of 

services for CI operators 

implementation 

  Potential to generate profit from 

  Market fragmentation resulting from the two 

EGNSS  enabled  receivers  for 

impacts above 

economic operators 

  Costs associated with upgrading receivers to 

  Business  development  and 

be  EGNSS-enabled  or  higher  costs  for 

market introduction [indirect] 

economic  operators  and  potentially  end 

 

Increased  quality  of  products 

users if transferred down the value chain 

[indirect] 

  Participation  of  SMEs  in  the 

R&D programmes [indirect] 

Social 

  Avoided loss of leisure activities 

  Unequal  access  to  the  service  following 

impacts 

relying on CI services, avoided 

market fragmentation  

loss of income dependent on CI 
services4;  increased  compared 

 

Indirect potential impact: unequal access to 

R&D  support  (geographic  concentration  of 

to Option 1 

R&D activity) 

  Scientific  contribution  (papers, 

  Potentially  higher  services  costs  through 

studies) [indirect] 

transfer  of  receiver  costs  down  the  value 

chain (expected to be lower than for Option 

1)  

Table 4:Potential impacts of policy option 2 

Similar to the other policy options, the cost-benefit analysis also identified overall positive impacts for 

policy option 2, with the exception of one application in the telecommunications sector – as shown in 

the Table below. 

4 Detailed explanation of avoided costs of outage can be found in section 2.2. 

10 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Sector/application 

Preferred 

Total 

Total  Discounted 

NPV (2020-2035) 

cluster 

EGNSS 
Service5 

Discounted 

Benefits 

Costs 

Telecom  –  DCN, 

Galileo 

3.8 million 

8.4 million 

4.7 million 

small 

cells 

and 

OSNMA 

Satcom 

Telecom – PSTN 

Galileo OS 

Telecom – PMR 

Energy – PMU 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

≈ 
11.6 million 

≈ 
0.3 million 

≈ 

-11.3 million 

1.0 million 

1,338.8 million 

1,337.8 million 

Finance  –  Bank  and 

Galileo 

2.6 million 

13.2 million 

10.5 million 

stock exchange 

OSNMA 

TOTAL 2020-2035 

19.0 million 

1,360.8 million 

1,341.8 million 

Table 5: Net Present Value of Policy Option 2 (in EUR) 

More than half of consulted stakeholders (65%) supported specific R&D support actions, though policy 

option 1 was still the preference.  

2.3  Policy  option  3:  Commission  recommendation  on  the  use  of  Galileo  and 

EGNOS for critical Infrastructures 

A  European  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  use  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  for  timing  and 
synchronisation would also help to protect critical infrastructures. The case of eCall6 is instructive, with 

impacts from this action used to cross-analyse the potential impacts of policy option 3, combined with 

stakeholder feedback.  The introduction  of eCall  in the  EU followed  a similar  approach to  the  policy 

options in this study. First, the potential of no EU action was assessed, then an EC recommendation, 

followed  by  a  regulation.  Given  that  regulatory  action  was  considered  and  ultimately  followed  with 

regards to the implementation of eCall, an impact assessment study was conducted. This study served 

as supporting evidence for potential evidence on likely impacts of the uptake of EGNSS for timing and 

synchronisation in critical infrastructures. The Commission Recommendation is expected to increase 

EGNSS service uptake by 50%. The potential general impacts of policy option 3 are summarised in the 

Table below. 

Type 

Key positive impacts 

Key negative impacts 

Economic 

  EC  Recommendation  expected 

to 

  Some  MS  might 

refuse 

to 

impacts 

accelerate uptake by 50%  

implement it 

  Higher  economies  of  scale  (through 

  Remaining 

risk  of  market 

facilitating 

the 

introduction  of  new 

fragmentation 

through 

applications)  

differential  uptake 

rate 

that 

  Additional  time  for  preparing  availability 

could  result  through  lack  of 

of relevant infrastructure 

implementation by some MS 

  Additional 

preparatory 

time 

for 

  Costs 

associated 

with 

developing 

plan/roadmap 

implementation 

upgrading 

receivers 

to  be 

EGNSS-enabled 

or 

higher 

5 Preferred EGNSS service per CI explained in section 2.2.5. 
6 An eCall-equipped vehicle triggers an automatic emergency call to Europe’s single emergency number 112 in the event of a 
serious road accident. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Type 

Key positive impacts 

Key negative impacts 

costs  for  economic  operators 

and  potentially  end  users  if 

transferred  down 

the  value 

chain 

Social 

impacts 

  Wider society: greater stabilisation due to 

  Unequal access to the service 

mitigation of societal damages caused by 

 

 Potentially  higher 

services 

outages of critical infrastructures 

costs 

through 

transfer  of 

  Avoided  loss  of  leisure  activities  relying 

receiver  costs  down  the  value 

on  CI  services,  avoided  loss  of  income 
dependent  on  CI  services7;  increased 

chain  (expected  to  be  lower 

than for Option 2)  

compared to Option 2 

Table 6: Potential impacts of policy option 3 

Based on the preferred EGNSS services chosen by stakeholders for each CI, the Net Present Value 

of Option 3 estimated by the CBA is as follows: 

Sector/application 

Preferred 

Total 

Total  Discounted 

NPV (2020-2035) 

cluster 

EGNSS 
Service8 

Discounted 

Benefits 

Costs 

Telecom  –  DCN, 

Galileo 

4.7 million 

10.5 million 

5.8 million 

small 

cells 

and 

OSNMA 

Satcom 

Telecom – PSTN 

Galileo OS 

Telecom – PMR 

Energy – PMU 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

Galileo 

OSNMA 

≈ 
14.5 million 

≈ 
0.4 million 

≈ 

-14.1 million 

1.2 million 

1,673.5 million 

1,672.3 million 

Finance  –  Bank  and 

Galileo 

3.3 million 

16.4 million 

13.1 million 

stock exchange 

OSNMA 

TOTAL 2020-2035 

23.8 million 

1,700.9 million 

1,677.2 million 

Table 7: Net Present Value of Policy Option 3 (in EUR) 

Of the stakeholders consulted, most (88%) considered an EC Recommendation useful or necessary in 

fostering the uptake of EGNSS. A Commission Recommendation implemented for a set period of time 

has clear value. A phasing approach could bring additional indirect benefits to the adaptation to  an 

upcoming regulatory approach. 

2.4  Policy option 4: EU legislation on the use of Galileo and EGNOS for CNIs or 
amendment of existing legislation in order to mandate the use of Galileo and 
EGNOS  in  the  critical  infrastructures  that  depend  on  satellite  navigation  for 
timing and synchronisation 

This policy option is expected to achieve the highest uptake of new services and applications, helping 

achieve full EU coverage. It also enables economies of scale at their maximum level, lowering the price 

for  the  end  user  compared  to  the  other  options.  Mandatory  introduction  of  the  use  of  Galileo  and 

7 Detailed explanation of avoided costs of outage can be found in section 2.2. 
8 Preferred EGNSS service per CI explained in section 2.2.5. 

12 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
EGNOS in CIs may improve the business case of the concerned sectors. It might also be an opportunity 

for European industry to share common technical resources in the field. This prospect could help the 

EU to gain a competitive advantage over other geographical regions in the CIs sectors depending on 

timing and synchronisation. Indeed, more consulted stakeholders believe that the competitiveness of 

EU  industry  in  their  respective  segments  would  increase  (27%)  with  an  EU-wide  requirement, 

compared to those expecting a decrease (15%). EU legislation is expected to increase the uptake of 

EGNSS services by 100%. However, due to the time taken to implement legislation, and due to the 

replacement rate of EGNSS receivers, it is expected that it will still take some time for all shipments to 

become EGNSS-enabled and for the installed base of receivers to become 100% EGNSS-enabled.  

Type 

Key positive impacts 

Key negative impacts 

Economic 

  Fast  implementation  (full  scale),  as  all 

  Delay in the application of the 

impacts 

stakeholders  are  bound  by  the  same 

EU legislation 

legislation (100% from year x onwards) 

  High  costs  of  implementation 

  Economies of scale at maximum  

for system upgrading  

Social 

impacts 

  High penetration rate  

  Service available in all MSs 

  No risk of market fragmentation  

  Facilitate 

the 

introduction  of  new 

applications 

  Equal access to the service  

  Potential coherence problems 

with other regulation in place 

  Potentially  higher  services 

costs 

through 

transfer  of 

receiver costs down the value 

chain 

(expected 

to 

be 

negligible)  

Table 8: Potential impacts of policy option 4 

Based on the preferred EGNSS services chosen by stakeholders for each CI, the Net Present Value 

of option 4 is as follows: 

Sector/application 

Preferred 

Total 

Total  Discounted 

NPV (2020-2035) 

cluster 

Telecom  –  DCN, 

small 

cells 

and 

Satcom 

Telecom – PSTN 

Telecom – PMR 

Energy – PMU 

Finance  –  Bank  and 

stock exchange 

TOTAL 2020-2035 

EGNSS 
Service9 

Galileo 
OSNMA 

Galileo OS 
Galileo 
OSNMA 
Galileo 
OSNMA 
Galileo 
OSNMA 

Discounted 

Benefits 

Costs 

23.1 million 

71.7 million 

48.6 million 

≈ 

≈ 

≈ 

20.5 million 

0.6 million 

-19.8 million 

1.6 million 

2,418.5 million 

2,416.9 million 

4.7 million 

24.7 million 

20.1 million 

49.8 million 

2,515.6 million 

2,465.8 million 

Table 9: Net Present Value of policy option 4 (in EUR) 

9 Preferred EGNSS service per CI explained in section 2.2.5. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Stakeholders  showed  different  preferences  in  regards  to  option  4.  Some  stakeholders  suggest  that 

legislation  could  follow  from  the  previous  options,  i.e.  that  the  European  Commission  could  start 

encouraging  uptake  through  options  2  to  4  and,  once  these  have  become standard  practice,  might 

consider legislation as a final step.  

3  Conclusions and recommendations 

3.1  Comparison of policy options 

In practical terms, the table below summarises the findings on impacts for the various policy options in 

the  previous  chapter.  Effectiveness  is  measured  by  the  expected  increase  in  uptake  of  EGNSS, 

whereas the efficiency criterion is measured by the NPV.  

Policy 
option 

Option 1: Awareness 
actions 

Option 2: Research 
and innovation 
support 
Option 3: EU 
recommendation 

Option 4: EU 
legislation 

EFFECTIVENESS 
Main objective: Increasing the uptake of EGNSS in 
critical infrastructures dependent on timing and 
synchronisation 

EFFICIENCY 
(benefit to cost 
analysis) 

Increased  awareness  is  expected  to  slightly  boost 
EGNSS uptake (+10%) 

Innovation support is expected to push EGNSS uptake 
(+20%) 

EC recommendation is expected to accelerate uptake 
(50%) 

legislation  would 

EU 
require  100%  mandatory 
shipments of EGNSS receivers from the year in which 
legislation  is  adopted  and  the  last  receiver  has  been 
replaced by a new one 

EUR 1,230.0 

million 

EUR 1,341.8 

million 

EUR 1,677.2 

million 

EUR 2,465.8 

million 

Table 10: Comparison of policy options against effectiveness and efficiency criteria 

All of the options are expected to have a positive effect to reaching the specific objective of increasing 

EGNSS uptake. However, the rate at which an EU action contributes to the uptake increases with each 

policy  option,  indicating  that  policy  option  4  is  expected  to  be  the  most  effective  in  achieving  the 

objective. Comparing the NPV values, policy option 4 is also expected to be the most efficient option 

overall. 

There  are  expected  differences  of  the  efficiency  of  policy  options  across  infrastructures  and  their 

applications. The comparison of the NPVs across applications and policy options is provided in the 

table below. 

Sector/application 

Preferred 

NPV (2020-2035) 

cluster 

EGNSS 
Service10 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

option 0: 

option 1 

option 2 

option 3 

option 4 

Telecom  –  DCN, 

small 

cells 

and 

Satcom 

Galileo 
OSNMA 

Telecom – PSTN 

Galileo OS 

Baseline 

3.9 

4.3 

4.7 

5.8 

48.6 

million 

million 

million 

million 

million 

≈ 

≈ 

≈ 

≈ 

≈ 

10 Preferred EGNSS service per CI explained in section 2.2.5. 

14 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Sector/application 

Preferred 

NPV (2020-2035) 

cluster 

Telecom – PMR 

Energy – PMU 

Finance  –  Bank  and 

stock exchange 

TOTAL 2020-2035 

EGNSS 
Service10 

Galileo 
OSNMA 
Galileo 
OSNMA 
Galileo 
OSNMA 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

option 0: 

option 1 

option 2 

option 3 

option 4 

Baseline 

-9.4 

million 

-10.3 

million 

-11.3 

million 

-14.1 

million 

-19.8 

million 

1,114.9 

1,226.3 

1,337.8 

1,672.3 

2,416.9 

million 

million 

million 

million 

million 

8.8 

9.6 

10.5 

13.1 

20.1 

million 

million 

million 

million 

million 

1,118.1 

1,230.0 

1,341.8 

1,677.2 

2,465.8 

million 

million 

million 

million 

million 

Table 11: Comparison of NPVs across applications and policy options (in EUR) 

According  to  stakeholders  interviewed  Option  4  is  likely  to  be  the  most  effective  in  achieving  the 

objective of higher penetration rates of EGNSS for timing and synchronisation. However, there was a 

balance of opinions between voluntary actions (e.g. policy option 1 to 3) and an EU regulation (policy 

option 4) (see Figure below).  

Figure 2 Type of an EU action needed 

Source: OPC (n=31) 

3.2  Recommendations 

Leaving the uptake of EGNSS to voluntary action, which is the current situation and what policy options 

1 to 3 would suggest leaves open a risk of market fragmentation, which is one of the primary reasons 

policy option 4 is the recommended action. This risk of market fragmentation could lead to a lack 

of economies of scale that could create an unfair level playing field with some actors implementing 

EGNSS services in their devices while others not. This could then lead to differences in costs for end 

users, making some devices more expensive than others. In turn, this could lead to an unequal access 

to EGNSS services as well. 

Not only is option 4 (for EU Regulation) the most efficient, it is also the most effective. EU regulation is 

expected to boost market uptake of EGNSS by 100% at a specific year when the regulation has been 

adopted. Market players will need to adjust and comply with the regulation and the last devices are 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exchanged with new ones. While all options contribute positively to the uptake of EGNSS, voluntary 

actions tend to translate very slowly into this increased uptake and do so in an indirect way.  

Taking action is particularly important because it is unlikely that awareness on EGNSS added value 

will increase highly on its own. There might be indirect positive effects of other awareness actions in 

terms  of  EGNSS  added  value,  but  these  are  likely  to  be  for  other  functionalities  of  EGNSS  (e.g. 

navigation and positioning). The other policy options are more likely to boost the awareness of EGNSS 

added value in timing and synchronisation. This could in turn contribute to the uptake as well, as set 

out as ultimate goal of these campaigns following the recommendation on implementing successful 

awareness campaigns. 

Finally, policy option 4 brings the highest benefit to society (EUR 1.2 billion). Under this policy option, 

avoided losses  are  the  highest  compared  to the  current  situation.  Businesses  would  avoid  costs  of 

revenue  losses  due  to  disrupted  activities  that  depend  on  critical  infrastructure  services,  and 

households would avoid costs of leisure activities relying on CI services, as well as avoid loss of income 

dependent on CI services. On the other hand, the most negatively impacted stakeholders under this 

policy option would be economic operators (receiver manufacturers). Their total costs incurred under 

the preferred policy option have been calculated at EUR 50 million. The increase in costs is associated 

with  upgrading  of  receivers  to  be  EGNSS-enabled  due  to  higher  uptake  of  EGNSS  services.  By 

comparison, the expected benefits are largely expected to apply to the society overall, far outreaching 

the costs generated to industry actors. 

One aspect to be considered with regards to option 4 is the coherence with existing regulations and 

the subsidiarity approach. Mandating regulatory measures must be in line with EU’s competencies in 

the field. When looking into the protection of critical infrastructures, there is potential for EU action by 

integrating  EGNSS  for  timing  and  synchronisation  in  critical  infrastructures.  This  could  be  done  by 

amending  Directive  2008/114/EC.  Here,  a  potential  option  for  the  EU  regulation  is,  for  instance,  to 

mandate  that  critical  infrastructures  relying  on  GNSS  for  timing  and  synchronisation  should  rely  on 

certain service requirements, i.e. authentication. 

While policy option 4 is the preferred option to achieve the objectives of this study, policy option 4 is 

not  mutually  exclusive  with  other  policy  options.  For  instance,  given  the  potential  indirect  positive 

impacts that awareness actions (option 1) or specific R&D support in the fields of EGNSS timing and 

synchronisation (option 2) could bring, they could be considered as additional support options to EU 

regulation. In particular following the consultation activities’ results whereby policy option 1 received 

high support, conducting awareness raising campaigns in parallel to EU regulation could be beneficial. 

Additionally,  as  lessons  learned  from  eCall  and  inputs  from  consulted  stakeholders  show,  potential 

indirect  benefits  of  having  a  phased  approach  into  EU  regulation,  it  could  be  possible  to follow  the 

option 3 (EC Recommendation) with a set time-frame that would eventually lead to the implementation 

of  an  appropriate  EU  Regulation.  Moreover,  following  policy  option  4  could  offer  the  industry 

preparatory time ensuring that the right standards are in place and infrastructure set once the regulatory 

action is followed and to enable the development and implementation of a roadmap to regulation. 

16 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person  
All  over  the  European  Union,  there  are  hundreds  of  Europe  Direct  information 
centres.  You  can 
the  centre  nearest  you  at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/meet-us_en  

the  address  of 

find 

On the phone or by email 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
- by Freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these 
calls), 
- at the following standard number: +32 2 299 96 96, or 
- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 
Online  
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is 
available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.  

Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct 
or  your 
(see  https://europa.eu/european-
local 
union/contact/meet-us_en ).  

information 

centre 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all 
the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu  

Open data from the EU 
The EU  Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to 
datasets  from  the  EU.  Data  can  be  downloaded  and  reused  for  free,  for  both 
commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

18 

Impact  assessment  study  on  the  Use  of  Galileo  for  Critical  Infrastructures  that  depend  on  Satellite  Navigation  for 

Timing and Synchronisation – 736/PP/GRO/SAT/19/11165 implementing Framework Contract 575/PP/2016/FC 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
H
V
-
0
1
-
2
0
-
4
6
6
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2889/03012  

P.O. Box 4175 

3006 AD Rotterdam 

The Netherlands 

Watermanweg 44 

3067 GG Rotterdam 

The Netherlands 

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00 

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68 

E netherlands@ecorys.com 

Registration no. 24316726 

W www.ecorys.nl 

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas  

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – CROATIA – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM