Europe's Earth observation, satellite navigation and communications missions and services for the benefit of the Arctic : inventory of current and future capabilities, their synergies and societal benefits.
Date: 2021-04-22
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: Arctic, budget, climate change, earth observation, evaluation of resources, international security, maritime surveillance, research report, risk management, satellite communications, satellite navigation, search and rescue, shipping policy, social impact

Europe’s Earth Observation, 
Satellite Navigation and  
Communications Missions and 
Services for the benefit of the 
Arctic 

Inventory of current and 
future capabilities, their 
synergies and societal 
benefits  

Boniface, K., Gioia, C. Pozzoli, L., Diehl, T., 
Dobricic, S., Fortuny Guasch, J., Greidanus, 
H., Kliment, T., Kucera, J., Janssens-
Maenhout, G., Soille, P., Strobl, P., and 
Wilson, J. 

2021

EUR 30629 EN 

 
 
 
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the 
methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other 
Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material 
on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal 
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Karen Boniface 
Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate E: Space, Security and Migration 
Email: karen.boniface@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +39-0332-785295 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC121206 

EUR 30629 EN  

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-32079-1 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/270136 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021  
© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 
on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is 
authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any 
changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2021, except: Cover page, Jean-Christophe André. Source: www.pexels.com  

How to cite this report: Boniface, K., Gioia, C. Pozzoli, L., Diehl, T.,  Dobricic, S., Fortuny Guasch, J., Greidanus, H., Kliment, T., 
Kucera, J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Soille, P., Strobl, P., and Wilson, J., Europe’s Earth Observation, Satellite Navigation, and 
Satellite Communications Missions and Services for the benefit of the Arctic - Inventory of current and future capabilities, their 
synergies and their societal benefits,  EUR 30629 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 
978-92-76-32079-1, doi:10.2760/270136, JRC121206. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1 

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................9 

Purpose of the study .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 

Study structure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

2  Policy context ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 

2.1  Arctic Policy: current and future perspectives ............................................................................................... 12 

2.1.1  EU Arctic Policy ............................................................................................................................................ 12 

2.1.2 

International legal framework in the Arctic ........................................................................................ 12 

2.1.3  The future of EU Arctic role and strategy ........................................................................................... 14 

2.2  EU Space Policy ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 

2.2.1  Budget repartition and main goals ........................................................................................................ 16 

2.2.2  Galileo and EGNOS (EGNSS) ............................................................................................................... 17 

2.2.3  Copernicus ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 

2.2.4  EU GovSatCom ............................................................................................................................................ 19 

2.2.5  Space and Situational Awareness (SSA) .......................................................................................... 19 

3  Users’ needs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

3.1  Science users ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 

3.2  Operational users ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.1  Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.2  Navigation and operations ....................................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.3  Communications ........................................................................................................................................... 25 

3.2.4  Disaster and emergency management ............................................................................................... 26 

3.2.5  Security ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 

3.3  Indigenous and local community users ............................................................................................................ 27 

4 

Inventory of current and future capabilities in EO ................................................................................................. 29 

4.1  Copernicus ................................................................................................................................................................... 29 

4.1.1  Copernicus structure .................................................................................................................................. 29 

4.1.2  Copernicus Sentinel missions ................................................................................................................ 29 

4.1.3  Copernicus contributing missions ......................................................................................................... 35 

4.1.4  Overview of user-required functions versus Sentinels ................................................................. 36 

4.1.5  Copernicus Services ................................................................................................................................... 38 

4.2  Other EO satellite missions................................................................................................................................... 49 

4.2.1  ESA Earth Explorer missions .................................................................................................................. 49 

4.2.2  Other European satellite missions ........................................................................................................ 50 

4.2.3  EUMETSAT satellite missions and facilities ..................................................................................... 51 

i 

4.2.4 

International Missions ................................................................................................................................ 52 

4.3  Other EO Capabilities .............................................................................................................................................. 54 

4.3.1  Services and Platforms .............................................................................................................................. 54 

4.3.2  Relevant R&D Actions ............................................................................................................................... 57 

4.4  Future missions .......................................................................................................................................................... 59 

4.4.1  Copernicus High Priority Candidate and Expansion Missions .................................................. 59 

4.4.2  Commercial missions ................................................................................................................................. 62 

4.4.3  Future Member States Missions ............................................................................................................ 62 

4.4.4  Future EUMETSAT satellites .................................................................................................................. 62 

4.4.5 

International Missions ................................................................................................................................ 62 

5 

Inventory of current and future capabilities in Satellite navigation ................................................................. 65 

5.1  Galileo ............................................................................................................................................................................ 65 

5.2  Galileo Services ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 

5.2.1  Open Service (OS) ...................................................................................................................................... 67 

5.2.2  Search and Rescue (SaR) ....................................................................................................................... 68 

5.2.3  Emergency Warning Service (EWS) .................................................................................................... 71 

5.3  EGNOS inventory service ...................................................................................................................................... 72 

5.3.1  EGNOS Services ......................................................................................................................................... 73 

6  Arctic SatCom challenges, needs and objectives ................................................................................................. 80 

6.1  EU SatCom .................................................................................................................................................................. 81 

Commercial Systems ........................................................................................................................................................ 82 

Governmental Systems .................................................................................................................................................... 83 

Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) satellites – Global Xpress ...................................................................................... 83 

Using LEO satellite mega constellations for GovSatCom ................................................................................. 84 

6.2  ARGOS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 84 

6.2.1  Better coverage in the Polar Regions.................................................................................................. 85 

6.2.2  ARGOS-4 & KINEIS Nanosatellites Constellation: the future of Argos ................................ 86 

6.3  Terrestrial and Satellite-based Broadband Internet Systems ................................................................. 87 

7  Arctic SSA challenges, needs and objectives ......................................................................................................... 98 

8  Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and satellite communications in the Arctic ....................................... 99 

8.1  First European Arctic Reanalysis products .................................................................................................... 99 

8.2  GNSS Radio Occultation .....................................................................................................................................100 

8.2.1  European missions ....................................................................................................................................102 

8.2.2 

International missions ..............................................................................................................................103 

8.3  GNSS Reflectometry (GNSS-R) .......................................................................................................................103 

8.4  Automatic Identification System (AIS) ............................................................................................................104 

ii 

8.4.1  European missions ....................................................................................................................................105 

8.4.2 

International Missions ..............................................................................................................................105 

8.4.3  Combined SAR-AIS missions ...............................................................................................................107 

8.5  Navigation / Precise Orbit Determination ......................................................................................................107 

8.6  Internet Of Things (IoT) Missions .....................................................................................................................107 

8.6.1  STEAM – Ships’s Sulfur Trails Emissions Aerial Measurements ..........................................107 

8.6.2  Argos and Kinéis (CLS/CNES) .............................................................................................................107 

9  Societal Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................................................109 

9.1  Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................................109 

9.1.1  Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic ...................................................................................109 

9.1.2 

Information collection ...............................................................................................................................111 

9.2  Case study selection ..............................................................................................................................................111 

9.3  Ship routing and navigation ................................................................................................................................115 

9.4  Search and Rescue ................................................................................................................................................119 

9.5  Societal benefits ......................................................................................................................................................124 

10 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................................130 

11 Main recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................132 

References .................................................................................................................................................................................134 

List of abbreviations and definitions ................................................................................................................................140 

List of figures .............................................................................................................................................................................143 

List of tables ...............................................................................................................................................................................147 

Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................................................148 

Annex 1. Galileo Open Service additional analysis ............................................................................................148 

Annex 2. Galileo SaR Service elements and Return Link evolution ...........................................................149 

Annex 3. List of experts and questions used to perform the societal impact assessment ................151 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iv 

 
Acknowledgements 

The authors thank David Arthurs from the global organization Polarview, and Shridhar Jawak from the 
Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS) in Norway for the exchange of views and 
their valuable contributions to this study.  

We  are  grateful  to  Solène  Routaboul,  Stephan  Lauriol,  and  Mariana  Childress  from  CLS  France,  for 
providing the latest updates and modernisation plans on the Argos system. 

We are also grateful to Axel Von Engeln from Eumetsat for providing comments on the GNSS-Radio 
Occultation section, Estel Cardellach from the IEEC (Spain) and Adriano Camps from UPC (Spain) for 
the updates provided on the GNSS-Reflectometry topic. 

We thank our JRC colleagues Inès Joubert-Boitat and Jesus San-Miguel for the useful material provided 
on the Copernicus Emergency Service, Matteo Sgammini for the navigation section and Pieter Beck for 
the Arctic vegetation aspects. 

We  are  also  thankful  to  Xavier  Maufroid,  Claude  Cowe  and  Antonio  Rolla,  from  DEFIS,  for  sharing 
information on the status and planned evolution of the Galileo services.  

Last  but  not  least,  we  are  grateful  to  these  other  colleagues  from  DG  DEFIS  for  their  constructive 
comments  and  remarks  through  the  completion  of  the  study:  Tanja  Zegers,  Gilles  Lequeux,  Leo 
Guilfoyle, Eric Guyader and Ola Nordbeck. 

Finally, we appreciate the thorough and thoughtful recommendations provided by Christina Corbane. 

Authors 

Karen  Boniface1,  Ciro  Gioia1,  Luca  Pozzoli2,  Thomas  Diehl3,  Srdjan  Dobricic2,  Joaquim  Fortuny 
Guasch1, Harm Greidanus1, Tomas Kliment4, Jan Kucera1, Greet Janssens-Maenhout3, Pierre Soille5, 
Peter Strobl3 and Julian Wilson2 

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate E, Space, Security and Migration, Italy 

2 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate C, Energy, Transport and Climate, Italy 

3 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D, Sustainable Resources, Italy 

4 Arhs Developments, Luxembourg 

5 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate I, Competences, Italy 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

Both the Arctic and Space are important policy topics for the EU, with recently defined strategies and 
programs. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has recently completed a study upon 
the request of the Directorate Defense Industry and Space (DEFIS) aiming at identifying the synergies 
across  the  four  domains  of  the  EU  Space  Programme.  This  study  surveys  the  EU’s  space-based 
capabilities, related to Earth observation (EO), navigation, communication and space monitoring, and 
highlights their current and potential future relevance for users in the Arctic. 

The user-needs across the four main domains are provided, covering the maritime sector, disaster risk 
management,  monitoring  essential  climate  variables  and  regulatory  compliance,  search  and  rescue 
services,  communications  and  satellite  service  disruption.  Users  cover  both  science  and  operational 
users  but  also  indigenous  and  local  community  users.  Challenges  are  then  discussed  related  to  the 
different domains of applications. Then, the study provides a large inventory of the current and future 
(i.e. next decade) European capacities in the Arctic.  

Finally, it discusses promising synergistic uses of space assets and applications, and presents a brief 
societal impact assessment. These synergies are expected to be key enablers of new services that will 
have a high societal impact in the region, which could be developed in a more cost-efficient and rapid 
manner. Similarly, synergies will also help exploiting operational services that are already deployed in 
the Arctic. 

The study  is based on  discussions  with various international experts from Academy to Industry  from 
several areas, and on an extensive literature review covering high-quality sources. The study aims at 
reinforcing  the  efficiency  of  existing  and  future  capabilities  for  the  Arctic  users  and  to  improve  the 
connectivity.  

6 

 
   
 
 
Executive Summary 

Given its vast size, sparse population and lack of terrestrial infrastructure, the Arctic region can benefit 
greatly from space-based services. 

The present study aims to evaluate how the EU’s space capabilities can benefit the Arctic and Arctic 
users gathered between science, operational and indigenous classes. The study reviews key EU policy 
actions for the Arctic and for space; identifies Arctic users’ needs; and surveys present and future space 
capabilities. It covers the four domains of the EU Space Programme – EO, satellite navigation, satellite 
communications,  and  Space  Situational  Awareness  –  and  treats  various  synergies  across  them.  An 
additional  objective  of  the  study  is  a  quantitative  assessment  of  the  societal  impact  of  satellite  and 
observation systems in the Arctic. The report can be of interest to policy makers at EU level and in EU 
Member States and to the space industry working on Arctic issues and seeking environmental, economic 
and societal solutions.  

Domain-related assessment 

The Earth observation and global satellite navigation programmes of the EU, Copernicus and Galileo, 
cover  the  region  and  provide  an  initial  contribution  to  key  environmental,  safety  and  security  needs. 
They are an implementation of the 2016 EU Space Strategy. The new EU Space Programme for the 
2021-2027  budget  will  widen  the  scope  of  the  space  activities  with  the  addition  of  the  Satellite 
Communications and the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) domains. This creates opportunities for 
the exploitation of synergies to capitalise even more on the entire programme.  

The importance of the four domains of the EU space programme: the Earth Observation, the Satellite 
Navigation, the Satellite Communications, the Space Situational Awareness is discussed in the Arctic 
context.  

Earth Observation (EO). Copernicus programme satellites provide large amounts of useful data over 
the Arctic, which is favoured with respect to other regions on Earth as most of the EO satellite orbits 
converge at the poles, increasing coverage there. The Copernicus Services transform satellite data into 
products like maps of vegetation, sea ice, air quality, shipping presence, and disaster risk and impact. 
These  serve  Arctic  users,  yet  are  sometimes  falling  short  in  specific  information  content,  spatial 
resolution and timeliness.  

Satellite Navigation (SatNav). The Galileo programme provides its services globally, covering the Arctic. 
The  services  comprise  the  Open  Service,  the  Search  and  Rescue  (SaR)  service,  and  soon  the 
Emergency Warning service. The Galileo Open Service caters to the positioning, navigation and timing 
needs of Arctic air, sea and land transport. The SaR Service under the Cospas-Sarsat system improves 
localisation of distress signals, which is important in the Arctic where SaR capacities are limited. The 
Galileo SaR service provides further enhancements for Cospas-Sarsat beacons thanks to a return link 
transmission, which broadcasts a confirmation of receipt to the sender of a distress message. In addition 
to Galileo, the EU has its own satellite based augmentation system, EGNOS that improves navigation 
accuracy  (EGNOS  Open  Service)  and  provides  integrity  information  (EGNOS  Safety  of  Life).  This 
service  supports  a  great  number  of  applications  in  the  transport  sector  and  renders  safety-critical 
operations  safer.  Both  services  rely  on  geostationary  satellites  that  are  not  visible  above  72°  North. 
Nevertheless,  EGNOS  is  already  used  for  GNSS-based  landing  procedures  at  a  number  of  Arctic 
airfields below that latitude. Integrity information above 72° North remains a challenge for EGNOS, but 
this gap can be filled by a new service: Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM), 
jointly developed by the EU and the US, which will start its initial service provision in 2025.  

Satellite Communications (SatCom). These are essential in the Arctic for long-range communications 
as surface links are lacking. However, they are currently inadequate for broadband SatCom, as this is 
mostly  offered  via  geostationary  satellites  that  are  not  visible  at  high  latitudes.  Some  commercial 
operators currently offer low-bandwidth communications from lower orbit satellites covering the poles. 
In the near future, the commercial offerings of broadband SatCom promise to increase, but the suppliers 
will mostly be U.S. companies. The EU is setting up the GovSatCom initiative initiative with a ‘pull and 
share’  access  scheme  providing  governmental  SatCom  services.  The  EU’s  governmental  SatCom 
capacity needed in the Arctic is expected to be an important driver influencing the future development 
of the EU GovSatCom initiative. As an alternative to SatCom, HF radio communications may be used 
but only at low bandwidths.  

7 

 
Space Situational Awareness (SSA). Monitoring of space weather is very important in the Arctic, where 
it influences the ionosphere, which in turn affects satellite radio navigation and communications signals 
as well as HF communications. Space weather can also seriously degrade the functioning of satellites 
and sensitive ground infrastructure, and pose a risk to air passengers. All of these effects are stronger 
in the Arctic.  

Main findings 

The  study  identified  synergies  between  the  four  components  of  the  EU  space  programme.  The 
monitoring of space weather to warn against ionospheric disturbances affecting satellite radio navigation 
and communications systems has just been mentioned. Satellite navigation is used pervasively with EO, 
as  all  EO  data  must  be  geo-located.  Furthermore,  observations  of  the  reflection  and  occultation  of 
satellite navigation signals have been found to provide means of measuring ocean wind, sea ice cover, 
ice thickness, atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles, as well as ionospheric disturbances. 

Several cross-applications have been identified and have growth potential in maritime surveillance – of 
high interest for fisheries control, law enforcement, environmental control, search & rescue and maritime 
security. For example, ship positions determined by satellites receiving ships’  AIS messages can be 
corroborated with EO images to detect ‘dark’ ships (i.e. ships not sending AIS messages) which may be 
suspected of illegal fishing. The best synergy is obtained when the AIS receiver is co-located on the EO 
satellite to eliminate time delays between the two types of observation.  

Therefore, strong synergies arise from integrating SatCom with EO operations. EO data are collected 
in space and transmitted to Earth for processing and downstream activities. The resulting information 
then needs to be sent to the operational users in some remote Arctic location, e.g. on a ship. For users 
in rapidly changing circumstances (sea ice, ships nearby), this needs to be done in near-real-time; a 
capability that can only be provided by SatCom.  

Concerning societal benefits, this study used a methodology endorsed by the Arctic Council's Sustaining 
Arctic Observation Networks (SAON) initiative to quantify benefits for the use cases of sea ice monitoring 
and  Search  & Rescue operations. A quantitative  analysis of societal impact indicators based on key 
objectives and societal benefit areas shows the value and high impact of satellite and observing systems 
on society. 

Since  space  capabilities  are  built  on  partnerships  and  projects  covering  science,  operations,  and 
Research  and  Development  (R&D)  activities,  with  a  clear  increase  from  commercial  partners’ 
involvement.  Proper  policy  instruments  (e.g.  standardisation)  are  needed  to  facilitate  synergies  and 
cooperation between the public and private sectors, to maximise the benefits for Arctic users.  

Today’s  satellites  produce  vast  amounts  of  data,  and  that  will  only  grow  in  future.  Extraction  of  the 
information  required  for  scientific  and  operational  users  requires  significant  computing  power  and 
reliable communications. In addition, the desiderata are often predictions; so full exploitation of the data 
and  their  synergies  require  predictive  models  on  timescales  ranging  from  hours  or  days  (e.g.  ship 
routing) to decades (climate). 

Finally, the study provides few recommendations and policy orientations summarized below: 

  Maximize the exploitation of data acquired by the increasing number of commercial missions 

facilitating data access policy.  

  Harmonize  the  existing  services.  For  example,  every  GNSS  provide  Search  and  Rescue 

capability that should be harmonized for the users within the beacons systems. 

  Develop dedicated branch with existing Copernicus services focusing on the Arctic region. 

  Provide educational material to the Artic Users to facilitate the use of complex EO products and 

data platforms in general 

The societal impact aspect of the study give examples where synergies of the different space element 
progamme will increase not only Arctic people benefit but global population. Examples are the sea level 
rise  from  the  glaciers  melting  in  Greenland,  or  weather  extremes  affecting  the  societies  at  the  mid-
latitudes. The study used a structured approach with reproducible methodologies (VTA and IL) which 
should be extended in the future for a full understanding of the use of satellite products, their benefits 
on society and their quantification in economic terms, in the Arctic and at global scale. 

8 

 
1 

Introduction 

In  recent  years,  the  environmental,  social,  economic  and  strategic  importance  of  the  Arctic  has 
increased. Much of that area is sea and it gathers together over four million people including over 40 
different indigenous communities. As a consequence of global climate change, the Arctic ice is melting. 
This opens the Arctic to exploitation of its resources, which include not only fish, oil, gas, minerals and 
rare earths but also  a natural environment that attracts tourism and  provides shorter global shipping 
routes.  

These  natural  and  economic  changes  are  strongly  impacting  the  Arctic.  Ecosystems  are  changing, 
affecting  distributions  of  fauna  and  flora.  The  increase  in  temperatures  in  the  northern  high  latitudes 
region have contributed to plant growth during summer (Myneni et al. 1997). More people are present: 
in addition to the  indigenous population,  workers (in extraction, mining, transport) and cruise tourists 
come and go. Shipping, both local (supply, fishing) and global (transit) is increasing. On land, melting 
permafrost  and  coastal  erosion  undermine  infrastructures.  Indigenous  ways  of  life  are  uprooted  by 
changes in sea ice, snow, animal distributions, as well as by globalisation. With heightened geopolitical 
interest, military activities are increasing. 

As  global  warming  is  expected  to  continue  for  decades,  we  may  expect  these  trends  to  continue. 
Measurement  and  long-term  monitoring  of  changing  Arctic  conditions,  activities  and  processes  are 
needed. Areas for attention include: bathymetric mapping; monitoring  of changing land surfaces and 
coastlines; monitoring of human activities on land and at sea; measurement and prediction of weather, 
sea,  ice  and  snow  conditions;  and  the  establishment  of  adequate  transport  and  communications 
connections.  

Arctic  marine  transport  is  expected  to  grow,  with  Arctic  shipping  routes  becoming  attractive  as 
alternatives to the main shipping lanes via Suez and Panama (Figure 2). In the future, sea ice decline 
may even make the Central Arctic Ocean route navigable as ice-free conditions occur more frequently. 
Increased  shipping,  including  cruise  tourism,  increases  oil  spill  risks  and  introduces  new  challenges 
such as the need for Arctic marine infrastructure for search and rescue and emergency response, and 
the need for accurate and reliable navigation to deal with sea ice and icebergs. 

The newly accessible wealth of the Arctic, in combination with the extraterritorial nature of most of the 
Arctic seas and their position right between the US and Russia lend a geopolitical consequence to the 
region. This has led to military build-up (notably by Russia) and an interest from new players (like China). 
Parts of the Arctic are of strategic importance to European defence.   

The presence of ice and permafrost makes the region particularly sensitive to warming induced by (non-
local)  anthropogenic  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  exacerbated  by  the  (local)  deposition  of  the 
atmospheric pollutant black carbon on sea ice, land ice and snow. This increases the absorption of solar 
radiation,  which  contributes  to  additional  warming.  The  melting  of  ice  causes  additional  radiation 
absorption by the darker ocean and land surfaces. The increase in temperatures in the northern high 
latitudes region has contributed to plant growth during summer  (Myneni et al. 1997). Snow albedo is 
related to tree cover and influences reflectance (albedo) feedbacks in coupled climate models (Loranty 
et al. 2014). Fires are becoming common in the boreal zone (Mack et al. 2011). In addition to the direct 
emission of Carbon, fires induce changes in the ecosystem structure affecting the albedo and energy 
balances of landscapes, including permafrost. The increasing warming thaws permafrost soils, releasing 
billions of tonnes of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Together these processes form a strong 
positive feedback loop accelerating global warming. As melting Arctic land ice causes global sea levels 
to rise, the Arctic acts as a fulcrum in the global climate change process.  

In addition to the territorial, geopolitical and global environmental complexities, the Arctic is also a unique 
local environment, home to several fragile ecosystems. The preservation of biodiversity and the viability 
of ecosystems in the Arctic is a global challenge.  

Besides the aspects mentioned previously, the Arctic is the home of diverse local communities that are 
facing drastic changes. A transversal element that needs to be addressed through appropriate policies 
is  the  connectivity  for  the  Arctic  peoples.  How  can  the  EU  support  Arctic  users  in  the  future?  How 
important is the digital infrastructure that exists today and what is missing to address the needs of the 
Indigenous  population  for  e-learning,  telemedicine  and  developing  critical  digital  infrastructure  in  the 
region?  

The eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United 
States) have set up the Arctic Council as an intergovernmental forum to support better governance in 

9 

this international domain. Three of the eight are EU states. Besides these eight full Members, the Arctic 
Council also has 38 Observers (countries and organisations), but the EU itself does not (yet) have this 
status even though it shares close historical, economical and geographical links with the Arctic region. 
Nordic countries represent a large  part of the EU territory (25%) and the Nordic region is growing  in 
economic importance (currently 10% of EU GDP). 

Considering all of the above, there is a strong need to reinforce a proper EU policy. Hence, given the 
important role of the Arctic as a regulator for the planet's climate, the EU is duty-bound to safeguard the 
Arctic  environment  and  strengthen  its  ecosystem  resilience.  Monitoring  ECV  (Essential  Climate 
Variables) and the understanding and monitoring of the Arctic environment are essential. The Arctic is 
an integral object of EU policy and confers to the EU a natural and important role to play in the region. 
EU  activities  and  decisions  are  also  having  an  impact  on  the  region’s  sustainable  development 
(European  Commission  2016a).  The  relevance  of  the  Arctic  region  for  the  EU  was  recently  further 
highlighted in a strategic note of July 2019 summarizing the EU and other international actors’ positions 
(European Commission 2019b). 

The large scope of the EU space program for the 2021-2027 budget is a major opportunity to address 
the various challenges affecting the Arctic, with the addition of the Satellite Communications and the 
Space  Situational  Awareness  (SSA)  domains  besides  Galileo  and  Copernicus.  This  creates 
opportunities for the exploitation of synergies and for the benefit of the Arctic (Boniface et al. 2020) 

Purpose of the study  

Given the sparse nature of the ground services, space-based services and infrastructures can provide 
substantial benefits and can help to address many of these issues. Making an optimal use of the space-
based capabilities requires having an up to date view of the current and future missions and services in 
Earth Observation (EO), satellite navigation, satellite communications, and SSA. This report is written 
from the point of view of the European context and therefore a full insight into the benefits brought by 
the EU’s operational programmes on EO and satellite navigation (i.e. Copernicus and Galileo) is given. 
The study addresses the following three main objectives:  

 

Identification  of  the  user  needs  in  the  Arctic  for  space-enabled  services  and  in  particular  their 
synergies,  in  the  four  domains  of  the  EU  Space  Programme:  EO,  satellite  navigation,  satellite 
communications and SSA, within a 10 years’ time frame. 

  Provision of an inventory of the current and  planned future space services and infrastructures in 

Europe relevant to the Arctic. 

 

Identification  of  the  current  and  future  synergies  both  at  the  service  and  infrastructure  levels, 
focusing on those in the EU Space Programme.  

Study structure 

After this brief introduction, the document presents the Policy background from the Arctic Policy and EU 
Space policy sides in Section 2. Section 3 presents the User’s needs starting with the science users, 
followed by the operational users, and finally the indigenous and local community users. 

Chapter 4 provides the inventory of current and future capabilities in EO including the Sentinel missions, 
Copernicus  contributing  missions  and  Copernicus  Services,  ESA  Earth  explorer  missions  and  other 
European,  Eumetsat  and  international  satellite  missions  of  interest  for  the  Arctic  region.  Other  EO 
capabilities are presented including various services, platforms, R&D actions and commercial missions. 

In Chapter 5 SatNav capabilities are detailed for Galileo and EGNOS services. Chapter 6 provides the 
SatCom capabilities including both intermittent connectivity capacity and state of the art of broadband 
SatCom. Chapter 7 summarises the SSA capability in the Arctic. 

Chapter 8 established the on-going and promising synergistic uses of EO, navigation and SatCom in 
the Arctic before a societal impact assessment is presented in Chapter 9, illustrated by two case studies, 
one on ship routing and navigation and one on search and rescue. 

Finally, Chapters 10 and 11 summarise the conclusions and main recommendations of the study. 

10 

Figure 1: Arctic sea transport routes and ports. Source: www.nordregio.org  

11 

 
 
 
2  Policy context 

2.1  Arctic Policy: current and future perspectives 

The Arctic hosts territories of eight states, three of which are in the EU, as well as High Seas beyond 
national jurisdiction. Many more countries (including EU states) have an affirmed interest in the Arctic. 
This indicates the importance of an international approach and of a role for the EU. Indeed, in 2016 the 
EU  set  out  an  Arctic  Policy  aiming  to  balance  economic  growth  with  sustainability,  environmental 
protection and social responsibility, taking a multilateral and international approach. 

Even though the primary responsibility for Arctic policy remains with the Arctic states themselves, three 
EU Member States – Denmark, Finland and Sweden – and some half a million EU citizens are involved 
in the Arctic. In this context, Arctic is an integral object of EU internal policy and confers to EU a natural 
and important role to play in the region.  

Furthermore,  the  Arctic  is  also  important  in  the  context  of  EU  strategic  autonomy.  For  example, 
Greenland has significant reserves of rare-earths which are crucial in advanced technologies promoted 
in  the  EU.  Rare  earths  are  an  indispensable  part,  for  example,  of  wind  turbines  which  generate 
renewable energy.    

2.1.1  EU Arctic Policy 

Following several initiatives (Commission of the European communities 2008; European Commission 
and High Representative of the Union 2012), in 2016 a Joint Communication for ‘An integrated European 
Policy for the Arctic’ (European Commission 2016a) confirmed the three priority areas of the EU in the 
Arctic: 

—  Climate Change and Safeguarding the Arctic Environment; 

—  Sustainable  Development  in  and  around  the  Arctic  with  a  focus  on  sustainable  innovation, 

investment, space technology and maritime safety; 

—  International Cooperation on Arctic Issues. 

The actions undertaken by the EU within the three priority areas will be emphasized through research, 
science  and  innovation.  These  actions  will  be  in  line  with  other  relevant  global  policies  such  as  the 
United Nation’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations 2019). 

EU is a major contributor to Arctic research devoted to Arctic observation and monitoring programmes 
(see  all  H2020  projects  on  Arctic  in  4.3.2.2).  Research  efforts  are  also  being  supported  by  the  EU 
through the EU-PolarNet initiative (22 research institutions across 17 European countries). The project 
supports an EU-wide consortium of experts and optimises the use of infrastructure for polar research 
connecting science with society. Use of space assets by European polar operators are reported in EU-
PolarNet Consortium 2017. The consortium is engaged in close cooperation with International partners 
to prioritise science. 

EU  is  working  on  climate  action,  environmental  research  and  sustainable  development,  while 
cooperating  with  Arctic  states,  institutions  and  local  communities  (European  Commission  2016c). 
Considering  individual  EU  countries,  Finland  like  other  EU  countries  is  pushing  to  trigger  regulatory 
frameworks on environmental sustainability, and is highlighting in particular the importance of digital and 
physical connectivity. 

Denmark  emphasizes  the  need  to  maintain  peace,  security  and  protection  of  the  environment  and 
reinforce international cooperation. UK has its own policy towards the Arctic (Polar Regions Department. 
Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2018) like the Scottish Government (Scottish Government 2019). 
Germany published its Arctic policy guidelines (German Government 2019). In 2016, France published 
its national roadmap for the Arctic (République Francaise 2016). 

2.1.2 

International legal framework in the Arctic  

Changes affecting the Arctic and their consequences are a source of increased tensions in the region. 
Therefore, international cooperation and legal framework are more than ever needed to maintain the 
Arctic peaceful and prosperous. 

12 

2.1.2.1  UNCLOS 

With much of the Arctic being sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 
provides a backbone to the international legal framework. UNCLOS, effective since 1994,  defines the 
rights  and  responsibilities  of  nations  with  respect  to  their  use  of  the  world's  oceans,  establishing 
guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The 150 
parties who have ratified UNCLOS include the EU and all circumpolar Arctic states, except the U.S. who 
nevertheless  tend  to  adhere  to  it.  UNCLOS  introduces  concepts  like  Territorial  Waters,  Exclusive 
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf and the associated rights and obligations.  

2.1.2.2  The Arctic Council 

The  Arctic  Council  is  the  leading  intergovernmental  forum  promoting  cooperation,  coordination  and 
interaction  among  the  Arctic  States,  Arctic  indigenous  communities  and  other  Arctic  inhabitants  on 
common Arctic issues, in particular on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection 
in the Arctic. It was formally established in 1996. The eight members of the Arctic Council are Canada, 
U.S., Russia, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden  – the latter three being EU countries. 
The Arctic Council furthermore has six Permanent Participants, which are organizations representing 
Arctic Indigenous peoples, and 38 Observers, which are countries, international organisations or NGOs. 
The research, monitoring and other work of the Council is primarily carried out by six Working Groups 
that are summarised in Table 1.   

Table 1: Working groups of the Arctic Council. 

Working Group 

Acronym 

Thematic  

Objectives 

Arctic Contaminants Action Program 

ACAP 

Environment, 
ecosystems,  

Reduce  emissions  and 
pollutants 

Arctic  Monitoring 
Program 

and  Assessment 

AMAP 

Environment 

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna  

CAFF 

Biodiversity 

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and 
Response 

EPPR 

Environment 

Protection 
Environment  

of 

the  Arctic  Marine 

PAME 

Marine  

Sustainable Development Working Group  SDWG 

Human dimension 

Tackle 
adverse 
climate change 

pollution,  
on 

effects 

Ensure  sustainability  of 
the living resources 

Protect  form  accidental 
release  of  pollutants  or 
radionuclides 

Protection,    sustainable 
use of marine resources 

Improving 
environmental, 
economic  and  social 
conditions of indigenous 
peoples 

During the Chairmanship of Finland (2017-2019) a dedicated Task Force on Improved Connectivity in 
the Arctic has also been established.  

In  order  to  help  achieve  sustainable  development  and  to  empower  communities,  improvements  to 
connectivity  are  needed.  The  human  dimension  of  connectivity  taking  into  account  the  needs  of  the 
different user groups was assessed by the Task Force. Further cooperation with the Arctic Economic 
Council  (AEC)  and  the  telecommunications  industry  were  encouraged  to  solve  everyday  challenges 
through adequate infrastructures. Key findings and recommendations performed by the Task Force were 
published in Arctic 2019. 

In addition, an Expert group is also operating under the Finnish presidency in support of implementation 
of the Framework for Action on Black Carbon and Methane (EGBCM). 

13 

 
To date, the Arctic Council has produced tangible results, among which three agreements legally binding 
the Arctic member states on issues ranging from search and rescue cooperation (2011), to marine oil 
pollution preparedness and response (2013), and scientific cooperation (2017). 

The EU itself does not hold a formal observer status. Nevertheless, it participates to the Arctic Council’s 
work as a de facto observer, upon invitation. 

2.1.2.3  Russia 

Russia considers the Northern Sea Route as an opportunity for national and regional developments.  

Two  thirds  of  Russia’s  oil  and  gas  is  expected  in  its  Exclusive  Economic  Zone  off  its  Arctic  coasts 
(Devyatkin 2018; Claes and Moe 2014). 

Hydrocarbon  extraction  in  the  Arctic  is  expensive,  complex  and  not  without  environmental  hazards, 
therefore  increasing  the  need  of  international  cooperation.  Western  sanctions  on  Russia  have 
complicated  cooperation  with  Western  companies.  This  partly  explains  why  Moscow  is  creating 
regulatory  and  administrative  legal  framework  for  foreign  navigation.  For  example,  foreign  ships  are 
required (CNBC 2019) to pay for weather and ice reports, for Russian pilots, and for Russian icebreaking 
services while they are forbidden from transporting oil and gas extracted in Russia along the route (The 
Moscow Times 2018). 

2.1.2.4  Canada  

Canada aims to maintain its sovereign rights and follow up the growing interest of non-Arctic countries. 
The right of local communities and indigenous people are also emphasized in the Canadian Arctic policy. 

2.1.2.5  United States of America 

Following pressure from China and Russia, the United States is reinforcing its position. The Arctic is 
becoming a priority for the US with the growing  ties between Russia and China. In August 2019, the 
diplomatic incident between Denmark and the US following the announcement of a possible purchase 
of Greenland by the US is a reminder that the Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity, abundance and 
geopolitical  struggle.  The  current  US  administration  has  been  retreating 
international 
environmental governance, while it appears to remain committed to multilateral governance in the Arctic. 
A  recent  US  Department  of  Defence  Arctic  Strategy  highlights  that  the  region  is  entering  an  “era  of 
strategic competition” (Pompeo 2019).  

from 

2.1.2.6  China 

China  gained  observer  status  in  the  Arctic  Council  in  2013.  It  is  involved  in  resource  extraction  in 
Greenland. China considers the Northern Sea Route to be of strategic importance to reduce its energy 
dependency. The current China Arctic policy includes the creation of a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its 
Belt and Road  initiative (BRI). The Chinese shipping company COSCO plans to exploit the Northern 
Sea route during the summer season.  

2.1.2.7  Other countries 

Norway and Iceland emphasize the need to take economic advantage of their natural resources (energy, 
land and marine resources) while protecting the environment, climate and biodiversity. 

India is also engaged in the Arctic region with the supply of liquefied natural gas  (Ministry of External 
Affairs 2013) and is involved in Scientific Research in Svalbard (Norway). 

2.1.3  The future of EU Arctic role and strategy 

The Arctic is becoming more strategic and therefore is also central to the EU strategic policy. A subtle 
balance  between  protecting  the  environment  while  maintaining  a  sustainable  economic  and  social 
development of the region and its communities must be achieved. Since the variety of challenges and 
issues faced by the Arctic are global, global cooperation is also key requiring continuous engagement 
with the US, Russia and China. 

14 

 
The drastic changes affecting the Arctic with the acceleration of climate change, and the Chinese plans 
for development and investments in the Arctic for logistics and infrastructure projects, require a stronger 
coordination of European Arctic policies and a broader cooperation among all Member States than ever. 

The EU has a central role to play ensuring both a sustainable economic development while protecting 
the environment. This is of particular relevance in the context of natural Arctic’s resources that are likely 
to be crucial in a near future for the global and European economy. 

The EU’s Arctic strategy will be reflected across the EU’s institutional set-up and within its programmes, 
projects, funding and relevant legislative actions. In particular, for the Space component, a cross-cutting 
strategy  is  now  needed  more  than  ever.  The  Space  Policy  and  the  infrastructure  for  space  already 
present in the EU’s Arctic regions should be further enhanced to facilitate adequate digital solutions for 
the Arctic environment. For example, the expansion of existing satellite programmes to cover the Arctic 
region’s specific needs is considered.  

investments  will  be  done 

logistics  and 
Future 
telecommunications  infrastructure.  This  include  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  to  promote 
better accessibility to European and global markets, as well as investments in ICT and infrastructure to 
connect  the  EU’s  Arctic  regions  to  European  and  global  digital  networks  as  reported  by  the 
Commission’s strategy on Connectivity for a European Gigabit Society1.  

in  expanding  sectors  such  as 

transport, 

Funding  mechanisms  with  the  coming  Horizon  Europe  programme  should  reinforce  Arctic  research 
funding  and  will  be  coherently  increased  to  achieve  better  actions  on  climate  change  and  other 
challenges. 

The  EU  active  role  was  emphasized  recently  on  29  November  2019,  in  the  Council  conclusions  on 
“Space  solutions  for  a  sustainable  Arctic”2.  In  particular,  it  was  stressed  that  space  solutions  play  a 
crucial role for the priority areas of the EU integrated Arctic policy. This applies to the mitigation and 
adaptation  to  climate  change  and  safeguarding  the  Arctic  environment,  to  the  need  for  ensuring  a 
sustainable development in and around the Arctic and at international level to solve Arctic issues. 

 As mentioned in the strategy note released by the European Commission's European Political Strategy 
Centre (European Commission 2019b), the EU should continue to be a pro-active actor regarding the 
damaging effects of Black Carbon: using existing mechanisms to reduce it, providing instruments for 
cross border cooperation between Russia and the EU. 

The EU should contribute to a constructive approach with respect to military security in the Arctic by 
supporting cooperation with coast guard authorities and cooperation in the area of maritime safety.  

The EU should also initiate a dialogue with China and other Asian countries to address common interests 
such as climate change and connectivity, like is done in the EU-China Blue Partnership for the Oceans 
(European Commission 2018d). This partnership is of greatest importance in the mitigation and adaption 
to climate change impacts notably in the Arctic Ocean. 

The EU should intensify its dialogue with the US to find common interests in environmental preservation 
and sustainable economic activities in the Arctic. 

2.2  EU Space Policy 

The 2016 Space Strategy for Europe (European Commission 2016e) confirmed the Union's commitment 
to an ambitious space policy in Europe to (1) maximise the benefits of space for Europe’ society and 
economy; (2) foster a globally competitive and innovative European space sector; (3) reinforce Europe’s 
autonomy in accessing and using space in a secure and safe environment; (4) strengthen Europe’s role 
as a global actor and promote international cooperation. 

The EU Space programme proposed in June 2018 for the 2021-2027 Multi-annual Financial Framework 
(MFF)  aims  at  ensuring  investment  continuity  in  EU  space  activities  encouraging  scientific/technical 
progress and supporting the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the European Space industry 
and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and innovative businesses (European 
Commission 2018e). 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/connectivity-european-gigabit-society 
2 Source: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/41665/st14952-en19.pdf 

15 

 
                                           
The space sector employs over 231 000 people and its value is estimated at 53-62 billion € in 2017, the 
second largest in the world. A third of the world’s satellites are made in Europe.  

The objectives of the new EU space programme can be summarised as follows: 

—  Guarantee  the  continuity  and  evolution  of  the  most  advanced  satellite  positioning  systems 
Galileo/EGNOS and EO Copernicus systems, develop new security initiatives on Governmental 
Satellite Communication (GovSatCom) and SSA component. 

—  Support  a  strong  and  innovative  space  industry  improving  access  to  risk  financing  tools  for 
emerging business models and to testing and processing facilities, and promote certification and 
standardisation. 

—  Maintain the EU’s autonomous, reliable and cost-effective access to space (e.g. optimization  of 

launch services, innovative technology for reusable launchers). 

—  Create  a  unified  and  simplified  system  of  governance  with  a  single  Regulation  for  a  simpler 

cooperation between all institutional actors.  

2.2.1  Budget repartition and main goals 

An overall budget of 16.9 billion € for the EU Space programme has been proposed for the 2021-2027 
MFF.  The  main  goals  of  each  component  of  the  programme  are  detailed  in  Table  2  with  the 
corresponding budget. 

Table 2: Proposed EU space programme components with their function, budget breakdown, and objectives. 

Galileo and EGNOS 

Copernicus 

GovSatCom 

SSA 

Function  Global 
satellite 
systems 

and  Regional 
navigation  

Free  and open  EO  data 
for 
land,  atmosphere, 
sea,  climate  change, 
emergency 
management 
security  

and 

Secure 
governmental 
satellite 
communications  

Space  hazards 
monitoring 

Budget3 

€8.0 billion 

€4.8 billion 

           –––  €0.4 billion ––– 

in 

leadership 

Maintain 
environmental 
monitoring,  emergency 
management, 
and 
border  and  maritime 
security 

Develop 
new 
observation capabilities 

data 

Develop 
dissemination 
infrastructure 
with 
commercial applications 

Develop 
GovSatCom 
through  pooling  of 
resources 
from 
Member States 

Improve 
government  action 
to increase citizen’s 
security 

Further develop 
space 
surveillance 
and  tracking  of 
space  objects 
to 
avoid 
collisions  

Address  other 
space  hazards 
space 
(e.g. 
weather, 
asteroids) 

Goals 

Achieve 
technological 
independence with respect 
to  other  global  navigation 
satellite systems 

Mobilise the economic and 
strategic  advantages  of 
having  European  control 
continuous 
over 
availability 
satellite 
navigation services 

the 

of 

Facilitate the development 
of  new  products  and 
services based on satellite 
signals 

Generate 
related 
technological  benefits  for 
research, 
development, 
and innovation 

3 Conclusions of special meeting of the European Council, 17–21 July 2020 

16 

 
 
 
                                           
2.2.2  Galileo and EGNOS (EGNSS) 

Galileo  is  the  main  part  of  the  European  Global  Satellite  Navigation  System  (GNSS)  that  provides 
accurate  positioning  and  timing  information.  Galileo  aims  to  ensure  Europe’s  strategic  autonomy  in 
satellite navigation (European Union 2016). It consists of a space segment of 30 satellites (currently 26 
in orbit), the Full Operational Capability (FOC) being planned in 2020. Galileo is operational and initiated 
the  provision  of  services  in  December  2016.  Galileo  has  a  global  and  continuous  coverage  and  it  is 
available in the Arctic. Three services that are of particular value in the Arctic include the Open Service, 
the Search and Rescue service with its unique feature of the return link message, and the Emergency 
Warning Service, which are introduced in section 5. 

The  second  element  of  the  EGNSS  Programme  is  the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay 
system  EGNOS.  It  has  been  developed  by  ESA  and  EUROCONTROL  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Commission (European GNSS Agency 2016). It has been operational since 2013 to augment GPS. The 
most relevant EGNOS services for the Arctic region are the EGNOS Open Service (OS) and the EGNOS 
Safety of Life (SoL), which are presented in section 5.3. Under EGNOS V2.4.2 (deployed in 2019) the 
Safety of Life service (SoL) is provided up to 72o N. The EGNOS V3 second generation will augment 
both GPS and Galileo (European GNSS Agency 2016).  

The governance structure of the EGNSS Programmes is depicted in figure 3.  

Figure 2: Galileo and EGNOS programmes governance 

2.2.3  Copernicus  

Copernicus is the European Union’s EO programme. It entered its operational phase with the launch of 
Sentinel-1A in 2014. It aims at developing European information services for the benefits of citizens and 
the environment through the collection of space-based data, complemented by in-situ data if needed. 

The Commission as programme manager owns the infrastructure and data rights on behalf of the Union. 
The  Programme  has  two  main  goals:  to  provide  European  policy  decision  makers  with  critical  geo-
information  and  to  promote  growth  and  competitiveness  in  the  EU.  Copernicus  has  a  Free,  Full  and 
Open (FFO) data policy, with a few exceptions for security-related applications.  

The development of the Space Component, including the  launch and  operation of the Sentinels and 
management of the Ground Segment, has been delegated to the European Space Agency (ESA). The 
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) coordinates the 
provision  of  space  data  and  operational  support  to  the  Climate  Change,  Marine  Environment  and 
Atmosphere Monitoring Services. 

17 

 
 
The governance structure of the Copernicus Programme is summarized in Figure 3. 

Figure 3: Coordination and management of the Copernicus programme 

2.2.3.1  Copernicus Space activities in the Polar Regions 

Copernicus  is  already  operational.  However,  it  remains  important  to  ensure  the  continuity  of  the 
infrastructures and services already in place while adapting to the changing user needs, including the 
new  interests  in  the  Arctic  region,  and  the  emergence  of  private  actors  in  space.  In  addition,  this 
adaptation  needs  to  be  pragmatic  with  a  rapid  response  since  socio-political  developments  evolve 
quickly in the Arctic region. 

Three  stakeholder  activities  about  the  monitoring  over  the  Polar  Regions  are  summarized  in  the 
following timeline: 

Polar and Snow Cover 
applications workshop

Gather requirements for the 
Second Generation Copernicus 
Space component 

Gather Service requirements

Copernicus and Polar 
Regions industry 
workshop

Raise awareness 
concerning the defined 
products and services for 
the industry and 
stakeholders

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Polar Expert Group

Definition of the high-
level mission 
requirements of the 
dedicated Polar and 
Snow Missions

Figure 4: Copernicus Space activities in the Polar Regions between 2016-2019. 

18 

 
 
 
2.2.4  EU GovSatCom  

EU GovSatCom is an initiative that aims to ensure the availability of reliable, secured and cost-effective 
satellite  communications  which  are  particularly  crucial  when  ground  infrastructure  is  inexistent  (i.e. 
maritime, air or remote areas), unreliable, disrupted or devastated (disasters, conflicts). A high level of 
security and of protection is required against interference, interception, intrusion and associated cyber-
security risks for the transmission of critical information.  

The  EU  GovSatCom  is  defined  in  an  institutional  context  to  respond  to  European  security  needs  of 
governmental users of satellite communications. The initiative also supports the competitiveness of the 
European SatCom industry. 

Current technological developments that are particularly relevant for the GovSatCom initiative include:  

  New services including the Internet of Things (IoT) 

  Optical space communications and Very High Throughput Satellites (VHTS) 

  5G  next  generation  of  mobile  networks  integrating  the  ground  and  space  communications 

infrastructures and services 

  Current deployment of LEO mega-constellations  

2.2.5  Space and Situational Awareness (SSA) 

The SSA is composed by three segments.   

Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) of objects in Earth orbit. This includes the tracking of active and 
inactive satellites, the discarded launchers stages and debris. 

Space Weather (SWE). This segment consists in monitoring the conditions at the Sun, in the solar wind, 
in the Earth’s magnetosphere, the ionosphere and the thermosphere in order to estimate the possible 
risks for space-borne and ground-based infrastructure. 

Near-Earth Objects (NEO). This segment consists in detecting and recognizing natural objects in space 
that can potentially impact the Earth and cause damage. 

As SST and NEO have no specificities for the Arctic, for the rest of the study only the Space Weather 
component relevant for the Arctic region will be covered. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3  Users’ needs 

The users’ needs are discussed here in the context of space-based services.  

Satellite-based  EO  is  a  powerful  tool  in  the  polar  context.  Because  of  the  extent,  remoteness,  and 
isolation of these regions, remote sensing is often the only cost effective and technically feasible means 
of obtaining information. The satellite sensors provide a unique source of information for monitoring and 
analysing various geophysical parameters related to the environment, safety, operations planning, and 
for sustainable development goals. 

Sea  Ice  Concentration  (SIC)  is  a  parameter  of  high  importance  for  operational  navigation  in  sea-ice 
infested waters and for climate services. It is a core measurement underpinning the EU Arctic Policy. 
SIC is required at a high spatial resolution (< 5 km) and with sub-daily coverage of the Arctic regions 
with  improved  spectral  and  radiometric  fidelity  compared  to  existing  satellite  capability.  Critical 
information  on  sea  ice  characteristics  and  iceberg  detection  derived  from  satellite  imagery  is  used 
routinely to help protect vessels in the Arctic from ice collision. 

In  the  following,  high-level  user  needs  are  discussed  for  the  three  user  groups  of  science  users, 
operational users and local/indigenous users.  

3.1  Science users 

The most important goal of science users is environmental impact and climate change assessment. 

EO in the Arctic region is crucial to monitor and assess the effects of climate change, the adaptation 
needs in the region and with a larger extent the global feedback effects of Arctic changes. 

The EO encompasses the monitoring of Ocean, Atmosphere and Land variables. Satellite EO data are 
used in conjunction with a number of sophisticated models to monitor sea ice cover, glacier runoff, snow 
cover, snow melt, iceberg drift, river ice and lake ice. 

An assessment of the resilience against the effects of climate change requires a continuous monitoring 
of  essential  indicators  such  as  permafrost  variability,  which  is  key  to  understand  impacts  on  terrain 
stability, infrastructure damage, coastal erosion, the carbon cycle and vegetation development. Some 
of these directly impact on operational users (next section). The thawing of permafrost is increasing the 
risk  of  damage  to  roads  and  other  infrastructure.  In  addition  with  climate  change  the  permafrost 
variability is expected to increase significantly (Hjort et al. 2018) and is monitored within the ESA-CCI 
(Climate Change Initiative) permafrost.  

EO  is  also  used  for  environmental  protection  to  help  monitor  regulatory  compliance  for  global  CO2 
emissions (e.g., Paris Agreement), fisheries, biodiversity, natural resources extraction, air pollution and 
trace gases.  

For  ice  sheets,  glaciers  and  permafrost  regions  there  is  an  urgent  need  for  monitoring  the  surface 
elevation and its temporal variability. Permafrost warming and thawing is observed in many locations, 
with an average warming of about 0.4°C per decade according to recent observations. This large-scale 
permafrost degradation may provoke feedbacks such as activating the soil carbon pool (Lawrence and 
Slater 2005). Additional complex feedback mechanisms caused by a decrease in surface albedo imply 
a wide range of climatic, hydrologic, ecologic, and geomorphic changes in the Arctic.  

With the IPCC  Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C released in October 2019  (Pörtner et al. 
2019), it has become even more apparent that limiting global warming as stated in the Paris Agreement 
is  a  necessity.  Arctic  winter  temperatures  are  already  2.5°C  higher  than  pre-industrial  temperatures 
leading to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere with severe reductions in snow cover and Arctic sea 
ice extent and thickness.  

20 

Figure 5: Past and future changes for Arctic sea ice extent (in September) and snow cover (in June). The relative change 
is computed with respect to 1986-2005 using two scenarios. RCP2.6 corresponds to a low greenhouse gas emission 
scenario  whereas  RCP8.5  is  a  high  greenhouse  gas  emission  scenario.  Source:  IPCC  ocean  and  cryosphere  in  a 
changing climate (Pörtner et al. 2019) 

In  addition,  the  impact  of  local  emissions  on  Arctic  tropospheric  composition  is  not  only  limited  to 
increasing  the  levels  of  air  pollution  but  is  also  tied  to  climate  (Ødemark  et  al.  2012;  Dalsøren  et  al. 
2013). It is well known that climate change is proceeding much faster in the Arctic than on global average 
(Stocker et al. 2014; A. Simmons et al. 2016).  

Observational records and forecasts both show a general warming in the Arctic. This warming is roughly 
twice as high as the global average, and there will be a need for understanding and management of the 
related  change  processes.  The  temperature  increase  is  particularly  pronounced  during  the  winter 
season. Record temperature changes have been observed for Svalbard, where the winter temperatures 
have increased by about 10°C over the last 60 years. In addition the economic activity is increasing in 
the region making reliable regional reanalysis even more needed for the Arctic region  (A. J. Simmons 
and Poli 2015). Since the observing system relies on remote sensing in the Arctic, the quality of satellite 
data is essential for the quality of the derived analysis products. 

21 

 
 
 
Figure  6:  Distribution  of  permafrost  in  the  baseline  (2000–2014)  and  future  (2041–2060)  climates.  The  location  and 
observed mean annual ground temperature (MAGT) of the data points (boreholes) are shown with coloured circles, from 
Hjort et al. 2018. 

Complementary  measurements  of  ground  displacements  can  be  used  as  proxies  for  changes  in  the 
state of permafrost, an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) which cannot be monitored directly from space. 
Improving our knowledge of changes in permafrost is relevant for both climate and emergency services. 
A new proposed Copernicus service element, the pan-European Ground Motion Service (EGMS) is a 
first  step  in  this  direction  and  will  cover  terrain  deformations  due  to  permafrost  thaw  in  alpine 
environments.  An  extension  of  this  service  to  cover  permafrost  in  high  latitude  lowland  Arctic-Boreal 
regions, located mostly outside of Europe, would be desirable. 

The main challenges regarding EO are linked with the particular weather and environmental conditions 
prevalent  in  the  Arctic  region.  The  polar  winter  and  frequent  cloudiness  require  having  microwave 
sensors.  The  time  interval  allowing  to  measure  soil  moisture  is  also  reduced  to  a  brief  period  in  the 
summer to avoid misinterpretation with frozen ground.  

The needs in EO have been gathered by themes with the corresponding scientific activities and sectoral 
applications in Table 3. The geophysical themes relevant for the Arctic have been extracted from the 
PEG report (Duchossois et al. 2018). The categories were devised by the experts in order to be aligned 
with  the  different  elements  of  the  geosystem  (atmosphere,  hydrosphere,  lithosphere  and  cryosphere 
division).   

22 

 
 
Table 3: EO needs listed by scientific activities and corresponding sectoral applications 

Themes (9) 

Scientific activities 

Atmosphere 

Climate  change 
and Weather  

Assess  the  rate  of  climate 
change 

Increase knowledge of energy, 
water budgets to forecast local 
and global weather 

Trace  gases  and  greenhouse 
gases 
ship 
quantification, 
emissions 

Sectoral 
Applications 

H2020  research 
projects 

Weather forecasting 

APPLICATE, 

Energy  

BLUE ACTION,  

INTAROS, 

KEPLER 

NUNATARYUK 

Transport  (land,  air, 
sea) 

Maritime 
(navigation, 
offshore, 
tourism) 

operations 
fishing, 
transport, 

Weather and climate 

Ocean 

Sea level anomaly 

Weather forecasts 

Ocean state and 
coastal 
zone 
change 

Sea  Surface  Temperature 
(SST) 

Ocean waves, currents 

Maritime 
(navigation, 
offshore, 
tourism) 

operations 
fishing, 
transport, 

ARICE, 
INTAROS, 

KEPLER 

Surface  Fresh 
Water 

Assess  movement  of 
water 

Understanding 
Biogeochemical systems 

fresh 

Hydrology 

INTAROS, 

Natural  and  technical 
hazards 

NUNATARYUK 

Land 
and Vegetation 

Surface 

Surface and Use 
change 

Research  on  structural  and 
functional  characteristics  of 
land use systems 

Impacts of human activities on 
land 

Global carbon cycle monitoring 

Global change monitoring 

Biodiversity changes 

Climate 

Energy 

INTAROS, 

Water management 

EU-INTERACT 

Food 

KEPLER 

Territory management 
and hazards mitigation 

Forest management 

Food  management, 
water  and  energy 
supplies 

Permafrost  and 
Soils 

Assess  the  loss  of  permafrost 
on  infrastructure,  climate  and 
people  

Infrastructure 
management: 
transport, construction 

Understand  and  quantify  the 
C02 and methane release  

Weather and climate 

NUNATARYUK 

ARCSAR,  

INTAROS 

EU-INTERACT 

Sea Ice 

Iceberg 

Ice shelves  

Assess the changes in sea ice 
extent and mass balance  

Ship 
Navigation  

routing, 

ARCSAR, 

Evaluate coastal stability 

Search and Rescue 

Weather and climate  

Infrastructure 
(offshore, 

oil 

spill 

23 

ARICE, 

ICE-ARC, 

INTAROS, 

KEPLER 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ice sheets  

Evaluate ice sheets  

monitoring, 
stability) 

coastal 

Water  management, 
Energy (hydropower) 

INTAROS, 

KEPLER 

Weather and climate 

Glaciers and Ice 
Caps 

Glaciers evolution on sea level 
rise 

Water  management, 
Energy (hydropower) 

INTAROS 

Snow 

Monitor  and  assess  snow 
cover  changes  and  its  role  in 
climatology, 
hydrology, 
ecology and socio-economics 

Weather and climate 

Hydrology 

INTAROS, 

Water resources 

KEPLER, 

NUNATARYUK 

3.2  Operational users  

3.2.1  Resources 

The exploration of new natural resources is a user application, which is carried out on land as well as 
on the sea, and requires PNT (Positioning, Navigation and Timing) information.  

Oil  and  gas  industry  requires  a  higher  telecommunications  capacity  in  order  to  support  Integrated 
Operations (IO) which consists in integrating data across disciplines and business domains. In particular 
information and communication technology are used to make smarter decisions on production. These 
operations  include  the  need  of  broadband  connections  for  sharing  of  data  and  video  surveillance  of 
platform. 

3.2.2  Navigation and operations 

Galileo and EGNOS receivers are embedded in many of the items we use in our daily lives including 
mobile  phones,  smart  watch  and  automobiles.  Several  applications,  ranging  from  the  provision  of  a 
reference time source for synchronizing networks to guidance of vehicles on sea, land or in the air, rely 
on PNT information. A survey was conducted in the framework of the project ARKKI, the results of the 
survey were reported in (Leppälä et al. 2019). Although the study is based on a very reduced number 
of interviews, it reported that the most significant challenges for the navigation in the Arctic are uneven 
coverage of positioning, untimely weather information, and telecommunication issues. 

Transportation is becoming more and more important and is expected to keep growing over the next 
decades in the Arctic region. As a consequence, several user requirements need to be fulfilled to cope 
with the resulting increase in the traffic. 

3.2.2.1  Maritime transport 

Arctic  shipping  is  increasing,  consequently  an  adequate  Arctic  shipping  infrastructure  such  as  ports, 
information and surveillance systems on safe navigation, and emergency response will be more and 
more needed.  

Users in the maritime sector and operators of offshore platforms require a timely provision of weather 
forecasts  and  other  high-end  EO  products  such  as  sea  ice  maps  and  iceberg  positions,  which  are 
needed to ensure safer maritime operations.   

Safety  of  new  routes  needs  to  be  assured.  International  cooperation  will  be  needed  in  establishing 
standards of marine environmental safety, crew training and education taking into account the existing 
technological aids needed and the missing ones. 

Currently  almost  all  boats,  commercial  as  well  as  recreational,  have  on  board  at  least  one  GNSS 
receiver;  the  devices  enhance  navigation  on  all  bodies  of  water,  from  oceanic  trip  to  coastal  trip, 
especially  in  inclement  weather.  Also  in  the  maritime  sector,  GNSS  solutions  may  need  to  be 
augmented, specifically for integrity (Reid et al. 2015). One of the most common solutions is the adoption 
of Satellite Based Augmentation System, in Europe EGNOS. Wide area differential GNSS are utilized 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
by the offshore oil exploration community for several years. Also, highly accurate DGPS techniques are 
used in marine construction. Real-time kinematic (RTK) DGPS systems that produce centimetre-level 
accuracies for structure and vessel positioning are available. 

3.2.2.2  Ground transport 

The  majority  of  GNSS  users  are  land-based.  Applications  can  be  very  different  spanning  from  LBS 
(Location-based  Services)  to  autonomous  vehicle  guidance.  The  ease  of  usage  and  the  competitive 
cost of GNSS devices have led to the emergence of a variety of location-based services such as: lodging 
in  a  particular  area,  request  emergency  assistance  via  forwarding  user  location  to  an  emergency 
response  dispatcher,  automotive  applications.  Among  the  different  users  the  ones  involved  in 
Autonomous  Vehicles  (AV)  are  particularly  relevant  (European  GNSS  Agency  (GSA)  2019b).  This 
specific application is also relevant in the Arctic region, where winter weather limits the usage of image-
based  sensors.  The  relevancy  of  AV  is  confirmed  by  the  creation  of  the  Aurora  Borealis  Intelligent 
Corridor,  which  is  a  path  on  the  E8  highway  between  Finland  and  Norway  to  validate  autonomous 
vehicle  platforms  in  Arctic  conditions  (Thombre,  Sarang;  Kirkko-Jaakkola,  Martti;  Koivisto,  Michelle; 
Koivula 2019).  

3.2.2.3  Air transport 

For GNSS-based safety critical applications, the aviation community represents the largest segment of 
users. This type of users exploits Galileo, GNSS in general, and their augmentation systems to provide 
guidance for the different phases of flight. For this type of application an accurate and reliable navigation 
solution  is fundamental. In the current state, Galileo  is able to  provide very  accurate positioning and 
timing  data  also  in  the  Arctic  region  (Council  of  the  European  Union  2019);  the  main  limitations  are 
related to the integrity requirement for safety critical applications. For aviation, and in general for safety 
critical  applications,  the  requirements  of  the  navigation  systems  are  very  stringent.  In  particular,  the 
navigation system has to provide integrity information together with navigation solution. Currently, GNSS 
without  augmentations  are  not  able  to  fulfil  all  the  requirements;  the  European  system  augmenting 
GNSS is EGNOS, which in one of its services provides integrity information for GNSS. EGNOS relies 
on the availability of geostationary satellites. EGNOS v2 is currently providing integrity information for 
GPS on a single frequency up to 72 degrees north. The new version EGNOS V3 will be providing Multi 
Constellation  Multi  Frequency  (MCMF)  service  augmenting  GPS  and  Galileo  for  L1-E1  and  L5-E5. 
Although EGNOS V3 will provide double frequency and multi-constellation integrity information, it is not 
able to fully cover the Arctic region due to the geostationary orbit on which the EGNOS payloads are 
embarked.  An  alternative  for  integrity  is  the  adoption  of  ARAIM  (Advanced  RAIM  Multi-constellation 
Receiver) which is a global service that will be in operational in 2025. 

Air  Traffic  Control  exploits  GNSS-based  navigation  in  different  flight  phases  to  improve  collision 
avoidance and to optimize routing; this leads to a reduction of the travel time and fuel consumption.   

3.2.3  Communications 

3.2.3.1  Maritime transport 

The maritime sector can be divided into two groups of users: the ones related to vessels and the other 
ones related to (quasi-) offshore installations such as oil platforms and drilling rigs.  

The maritime sector started to undergo digitalisation having the introduction of Automatic Identification 
System (AIS) for safety concerns. The system is a broadcast communication system allowing reporting 
the  position,  course,  speed  in  order  to  avoid  collisions.  According  to  the  International  Marine 
Organisation (IMO) users need to be equipped with AIS for class A (SOLAS vessel, mandatory), while 
a lower cost type AIS transceiver was specified for class B vessels (voluntary) (ITU 2007).  

The  Polar  code  covers  the  full  range  of  shipping-related  matters  relevant  to  navigation  in  waters 
surrounding the two poles. This includes the ship design, construction and equipment; operational and 
training concerns; search and rescue; and, equally important, the protection of the unique environment 
and  eco-systems  of  the  Polar  Regions.  The  functional  requirements  from  the  Polar  Code  (entry  into 
force 1 January 2017) for ship communication are summarized: 

-  Two-way voice and/or data communications ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore shall be available at all 

points along the intended operating routes. 

25 

 
-  Suitable  means  of  communications  shall  be  provided  where  escort  and  convoy  operations  are 

expected.  

-  Means  for  two-way  on-scene  and  SaR  coordination  communications  for  search  and  rescue 

purposes including aeronautical frequencies shall be provided. 

-  Appropriate  communication  equipment  to  enable  tele  medical  assistance  in  polar  areas  shall  be 

provided. 

Maritime broadband connections are used for vessel  operations, internet and email access for crew. 
Maritime broadband data rate requirements are expected to reach 2.5 Mbit/s towards 2020 (Euroconsult, 
MARINTEK, SINTEF ICT, Telenor 2011).  

In summary for all sectors and according to the requirements, the Arctic satellite communications system 
is  limited  to  broadcasting,  broadband,  backhaul,  distress  and  safety  services.  The  broadcasting 
requirements in the maritime sector are comparable to land based requirements. 

3.2.3.2  Air transport 

For the aviation sector, two main communication needs have been identified: 

- 

- 

the cockpit communications that are part of the Air Traffic Management (ATM) communications 
and are related to flight operations. 

the  cabin  communications  that  are  linked  to  in-flight  entertainment  applications,  passenger 
communications including on board wireless internet  service and that require broadband service. 
For  in-flight  entertainment  and  to  satisfy  all  users  a  broadcasting  service  with  a  range  of  20-30 
channels is also desirable. 

According  to  the  different  needs  the  arctic  broadband  requirement  for  aeronautical  domain  is  in  the 
range of 100 Mbit/s to 150 Mbit/s. 

3.2.4  Disaster and emergency management 

Disaster risk management requires EO satellites capability for rapid mapping of specific areas in case 
of emergency warnings (e.g., fire, volcanic eruption...). That is also needed to assess the impact of the 
disaster and the precise extent of the damages.  

Disaster  risk  management  strongly  relies  on  the  navigation  solution;  in  order  to  coordinate  the 
operations, the entity in charge of the coordination of the rescue team needs to locate precisely spatially 
and temporally the events and actions in the disaster area.  

Distress  and  safety  require  adequate  communication  services  to  issue  distress  calls  and  get  safety 
information  through  local  radio  and  TV  stations.  A  very  high  availability  and  reliability  of  these 
communication services is required and for all-weather conditions.  

3.2.5  Security 

Security  issues  in  the  Arctic  may  pertain  to  crossing  of  land  and  sea  borders  related  to  customs  or 
immigration, activities near borders, military build-up, entry into closed fishing zones (which may depend 
on  the  season),  transhipments  at  sea,  unregistered  exploration  or  exploitation,  shipping  of  illegal  or 
embargoed goods, or any other infringement of laws and regulations. A number of security issues that 
occur elsewhere in the world like piracy or conflict and its impacts are luckily not present in the Arctic.  

Space-based  sensors  can  be  used  to  monitor  land  and  sea  for  events  like  the  above.  In  general, 
however, very high resolution is needed in order to establish that some target or activity indeed poses 
a security threat. In addition, such targets and activities are often transient, meaning that monitoring with 
a low revisit rate is often not good enough. Today, not many EO constellations have the required high 
resolution and high revisit rate, so security applications are daunting for EO. Still, EO can provide very 
helpful information when used in the right way together with other means.  

A transversal need that is relevant for land, maritime and air users is the exploitation of the geofencing 
concept: a vehicle is programmed to remain within a fixed geographical area and alerts the fleet operator 
whenever the vehicle violates the prescribed fence. Conversely, an alert is issued if an object is detected 

26 

 
entering a closed area. This activity can be very relevant for the Arctic region where restricted areas are 
present (European Council 2018; European Commission 2018a). 

Security threats typically need a fast reaction time for intervention. Therefore, real-time communication 
links are needed, which in the Arctic means satellite communication. As long as the EO data are not 
processed in-orbit, wide-band SatCom is needed for downlinking. The Arctic has a good share of ground 
receiving  stations,  so  this  is  possible;  it  is  a  matter  of  prioritising  between  data  downloads.  After 
downloading to the ground station, a good architecture for the data processing and distribution is needed 
in order to be able to send derived actionable information around to the operational responders in real-
time.  

Operations  against  the  more  serious  security  threats  such  as  cross-border  crime  or  (para-)  military 
actions need navigation and communication capabilities that are robust against interference.  

3.3 

Indigenous and local community users 

Arctic  people  and  communities’  needs  need  to  be  evaluated  to  address  existing  gaps  (EU-PolarNet 
Consortium 2018). Connectivity is one transversal domain which has numerous individual and social 
benefits.  It  supports  education,  social  equality,  enhances  democratic  participation.  Sufficient 
connectivity is needed to ensure Arctic businesses to develop their potential without limitation. The local 
community users’ needs are increasing with more reliable telephony and broadband access needed, 
which are essential for information and development purposes. In the next decade, the Arctic region is 
expected to have a growth in human activities and therefore an increasing demand for communication 
solutions. Moreover, the geographic specificities of the Arctic region which is composed mainly of ice 
and  water  make  the  terrestrial  infrastructure  almost  absent.  As  a  result,  space  infrastructure  for 
communications is even more needed to cope with the increasing needs in the Arctic. 

Communities  in  the  Arctic  are  located  in  remote  areas  and  terrestrial  infrastructure  outside  of 
communities is limited. Land based broadband services in the Arctic are mostly for small communities. 
The harsh climate contributes to a short construction season for deploying the physical infrastructure 
necessary for additional broadband technologies. The large amount of snow and ice complicates the 
maintenance as well (Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group 2016). 

The user’s needs do not only come from indigenous communities but also from workers on platforms, 
at remote mining sites or on fishing ships who may not be indigenous but are locals, and whose numbers 
are expected to grow.  

Another  significant  growth  area  in  the  Arctic  is  cruise  ship  tourism.  There  will  be  cruise  ships  with 
thousands of passengers who are expecting luxury standards including access to broadband internet 
on their mobile phones. This is expected to be a strong driver of commercial broadband solutions in the 
Arctic.  

Another category of needs that impact directly Arctic residents is related to the food and water security. 
According to the recent IPCC summary for policymakers on ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate 
(Pörtner et al. 2019) food availability and water quality evaluation is needed. Particularly melting glaciers 
and thawing permafrost that release mercury need to be taken into account. 

To give an idea of the minimum requirements for broadcasting service a service offering between 20 to 
30 channels available from cable, satellite and terrestrial system (Løge 2013) should be available to be 
aligned with the rest of the world. Given the actual distribution and density of the local communities this 
means having a total backhaul capacity in the order of 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s.  

The following sections 4 to 7 provide details on the four components of the EU space programme. 

Who are the Arctic users and what are their needs? 

The study allowed identifying three main categories of users and their corresponding needs to 
answer the diverse and evolving challenges in the Arctic region. 

In particular, science users’ main goal is to monitor environmental impact and climate change 
assessment in EO. Climate change evaluation and assessment of resilience and its adaptation 

27 

 
 
is needed for land (e.g. permafrost variability, coastal erosion, infrastructure damages...), 
ocean (e.g. iceberg drift, sea ice coverage) and atmosphere (e.g. air pollution, CO2 emissions 
regulatory framework). 

The operational users belong mainly to the oil and gas industry and the transport sectors. With 
the significant traffic increase in the region the maritime transport needs timely and accurate 
information to guarantee the safety of maritime operations. Similarly, with the development of 
air traffic in the region and the use of GNSS for safety critical applications, accurate and 
reliable navigation solutions are fundamental. The Arctic region with the augmentation system 
EGNOS V3 will allow receiving multi constellation and multi frequency service for GPS and 
Galileo by 2025. 

For ground transportation, the advent of autonomous vehicles with specific location-based 
capability needs have led to the emergence of various location-based services.  

Another category of operational users belongs to the distress and safety sector for which 
adequate communication services are essential. In addition, operators in charge of disaster 
risk management rely strongly on navigation solutions. 

Finally, the last but not least category of users is the Arctic people themselves. Indigenous and 
local community users need adequate connectivity for daily life and various types of work on 
platforms, remote mining sites and fishing ships, as well as for cruise ship tourism. Arctic 
residents are also in need of monitoring food availability and water quality. 

28 

 
 
 
4 

Inventory of current and future capabilities in EO    

The inventory of the EO capabilities will start with Copernicus because – together with Galileo – it is the 
EU’s own program. Copernicus comprises satellites, services and (non-space) infrastructure. After that, 
other current EO satellites will be listed, other EO-based services and other infrastructure in separate 
sub-chapters. Finally, future developments for EO will be listed. 

4.1  Copernicus  

4.1.1  Copernicus structure 

Copernicus  is  the  EU’s  flagship  program  for  EO4.  It  is  designed  to  operationally  provide  data  and 
services  to  end  users,  based  on  EO  (satellite)  measurements  complemented  with  non-space  data. 
Copernicus recognises a satellites component, an in-situ component and a services component. In the 
Copernicus logic, the satellites component consists of satellites and their supporting ground stations. (In 
this  report,  the  latter  are  discussed  under  infrastructure.)  The  satellites  consist  of  two  groups: 
Copernicus’ own satellites the Sentinels of which there are six, and contributing (third party) missions of 
which there are about 30.  

The  Copernicus  programme  offers  six  operational  thematic  services  in  the  fields  of  atmosphere 
monitoring, marine environment monitoring, land monitoring, climate change, emergency management 
and security. All provide products relevant for the Arctic. The focus of the Copernicus services for the 
Polar Regions is put more particularly on continuous monitoring. As mentioned in the Copernicus Market 
Report (European Commission 2019), the key Copernicus products relevant for the Arctic region belong 
to the maritime surveillance including vessel and oil spills detection and support to pollution response. 

Copernicus  is  managed  and  funded  by  the  European  Commission,  and  the  space  component  is 
implemented and co-funded by ESA. The data and information produced by Copernicus are free and 
openly available, for use by public and private users. The program is shaped by user requirements.  

4.1.2  Copernicus Sentinel missions 

The EU’s own satellites under the Copernicus program are the Sentinels, numbered one through six. 
The Sentinels carry a range of technologies, such as radar and multi-spectral imaging instruments for 
land, ocean and atmospheric monitoring. They are listed in the table and further discussed below.  

Note that polar-orbiting satellites have their orbits converge at the poles, so their revisit times at high 
latitudes are much shorter than over the equator, favouring Arctic monitoring. In addition, the Sentinel-
1 and -2 satellites cannot collect data all the time due to capacity restrictions, so they have to select 
areas; Sentinel-1 always monitors the Arctic and Sentinel-2 always monitors part of it. 

4 Source: https://www.copernicus.eu/en%20  

29 

 
 
 
                                           
Table 4: Sentinel missions, status and key features.  Repeat is the interval that image acquisitions of the same area 
can be repeated under exactly the same angle. Revisit is the interval that a specific area can be imaged combining 
different imaging geometries, assuming the satellite is always collecting data (theoretical best times).  

Mission  

Sensor(s) 

Resolution-  Repeat 
- Revisit Time 

Status  

Key Features 

(Nov 2019) 

Sentinel-1 

C-band SAR 

(5a-) 21-50m 

2 satellites in orbit   Polar-orbiting 

6 day repeat 

3  day 
revisit  at 
equator,  <1  day  in 
the Arctic 

All-weather 

Day and night radar 
imaging 

10-60 m 

2 satellites in orbit  Polar-orbiting 

5 days repeat 

5  day 
revisit  at 
equator,  <1  day  in 
the Arctic 

13  spectral  bands 
in optical and SWIR 

High 
imaging 

resolution 

300-1200 m  

2 satellites in orbit  For  surface  colour, 

<1-2  day  revisit  at 
equator,  <0.5 day  in 
the Arctic(b) 

surface 
temperature 
surface height 

and 

Sentinel-2 

Optical  Multi-
spectral 

Sentinel-3 

Optical  multi-
spectral  (OLCI) 
+ Infrared multi-
spectral 
(SLSTR) 
+ 
Radar  altimeter 
+  Microwave 
radiometer 

Sentinel-4 

Similar to S-5 

Launch late 2021  Geostationary,  so 
not useful for Arctic 

Sentinel-5p 

Sentinel-5 

Imaging 
spectrometer 
UV-Visible-
SWIR 

High-resolution 
spectrometer 
UV-Visible-
SWIR 

7-68km  

1 satellite in orbit 

<1  day  revisit  in  the 
Arctic 

atmospheric 

For 
trace gasses 

7.5-50km  

1st Launch in 2022  Payload 

<1  day  revisit  in  the 
Arctic 

atmosphere 
chemistry 
MetOp 
Generation 

for 

on 
2nd 

Sentinel-6 

Altimeter 

10 day revisit 

1st  Launch  in  Nov 
2020 

Radar  altimeter  to 
measure global sea 
surface height 

(a): Theoretical best resolution that is normally not available5. (b): The precise numbers are different for 
each of the four sensors. 

A short description of the missions is given highlighting the specific features and products available for 
the Arctic region: 

Sentinel-1 provides all-weather, day and night radar imagery for land and ocean services. It comprises 
a constellation of two identical polar-orbiting satellites operating day and night performing with C-band 
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging. Such images can be used (alone or more typically together with 
other  data)  to  map  /  measure  /  monitor:  land  cover,  vegetation,  crops,  soil  moisture,  built-up  areas, 
terrain  heights,  changes  in  terrain  and  infrastructures,  coastlines,  and  –  over  sea  –  wind,  waves, 
currents, fronts, ice cover, icebergs, oil spills, ships and offshore structures.  

5 Source: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/user-guides  

30 

 
 
                                           
The Sentinel-1 SAR sensor can be operated in different modes, that are characterised by differences in 
resolution, image extent and image quality, and in different polarisations. Under Sentinel-1’s observation 
scenario,  the  sensor  is  always  switched  on  over  the  Arctic,  but  with  different  image  modes  and 
polarisations over different areas. This is specified in the two figures below. Over the Arctic, the usual 
image modes are EW, giving 50 m resolution and 400 km wide images, and IW, giving 21 m resolution 
and 250 km wide images. The polarisation is HH+HV over the Arctic seas, Greenland and Canadian 
Arctic  lands;  over  the  remainder  of  the  Arctic  land,  it  is  VV+VH.  These  choices  are  related  to  the 
performance of these polarisations w.r.t. sea, sea ice and land.  

Figure 7: Sentinel-1 revisit and coverage frequency6. 

6 Source: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/missions/sentinel-1/observation-scenario  

31 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 8: Sentinel-1 polarisation and observation mode7. 

Figure 9: Footprints of Sentinel 1 (EW mode) over 50° North for the full period of acquisitions (2014-2020) 

7 Source: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/missions/sentinel-1/observation-scenario  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 10: Number of Sentinel 1 acquisitions computed over the full period (2014-2019) with a 250 km grid using the 
extra wide (EW, left) and interferometric wide (IW, right) modes. 

The Sentinel-2 mission aims at monitoring variability in land surface conditions using a multispectral 
high-resolution  sensor.  It  comprises  a  constellation  of  two  polar-orbiting  satellites  that  are  identical, 
operating simultaneously; phased at 180° to each other, in a sun-synchronous orbit at a mean altitude 
of 786 km. Its images have a wide swath width of 290 km.  

The geographical coverage limits are between latitudes 56° south and 84° north. Within that band, the 
mission  systematically  acquires  data  over  land  and  coastal  areas,  with  a  coverage  and  revisit  as 
illustrated in the figures below. Sentinel-2 allows mapping of land cover, vegetation, soil and water cover, 
inland waterways and coastal areas. It can also deliver information for emergency and crisis response 
services. It can detect targets at sea and monitor infrastructures on land for security applications.  

Figure 11: Coverage and revisit of Sentinel-28. 

8 Source: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/user-guides/sentinel-2-msi/revisit-coverage  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 12: Number of Sentinel 2 acquisitions computed over the full period (July 2015- September September 2019). 
The white squares with no acquisition are due to the acquisition plan.  

Sentinel-3 provides high-accuracy optical, radar and altimetry data for marine and land services. The 
Sentinel-3 carries four main sensors: the Ocean and Land Colour Instrument (OLCI); the Sea and Land 
Surface  Temperature  Radiometer  (SLSTR);  the  SAR  Radar  Altimeter  (SRAL);  and  the  Microwave 
Radiometer  (MWR).  They  measure  sea  surface  topography,  sea  and  land  surface  temperature  and 
ocean and land surface colour, and provide various parameters critical for the Arctic region such as sea 
ice extent, sea ice thickness and albedo. Due to the orbit constraint, data contains an 1860 km-wide 
“hole” at northernmost and southernmost latitudes. Therefore, Arctic sea ice monitoring is reduced at 
the northernmost latitudes. 

Figure 13 and Figure 14 depict the mean revisit time obtained with OLCI and SLSTR instruments on 
board Sentinel-3.  

Figure 13: OLCI mean revisit times with a two-satellite configuration, in red 2 days are required to have revisit at equator, 
in blue less than 0.5 days at high latitude9. 

9 Source: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/missions/sentinel-3 h 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 14: SLSTR Mean Revisit Time with Two-Satellite Configuration9. 

Sentinel-4  and  -5  are  not  satellites  but  are  payloads  carried  on  other  satellites.  Both  are  still  to  be 
launched,  in  late  2021  and  late  2022  respectively10.  Sentinel-5  will  provide  data  for  atmospheric 
composition monitoring from polar orbit (carried on EUMETSAT's Metop Second Generation satellite) 
whereas  Sentinel-4  will  provide  similar  data  but  on  a  geostationary  orbit  (carried  on  EUMETSAT's 
Meteosat Third Generation satellite). The payloads are a Ultra-Violet, Visible and Near-Infrared Sounder 
(UVNS).  Being  geostationary,  Sentinel-4’s  use  over  the  Arctic  will  be  limited.  Sentinel-5  will  provide 
accurate  measurements  of  key  atmospheric  constituents  such  as  ozone,  nitrogen  dioxide,  sulphur 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde, and aerosol properties. 

Sentinel-5P (Precursor) bridges the gap between Envisat (Sciamachy data in particular) and Sentinel-
5 for which the first launch is expected in 2022. The global data are stored on board and downlinked 
to the Svalbard  station.  The  satellite  payload  on-board  Sentinel-5P  is  TROPOMI  (Tropospheric 
Monitoring Instrument) which is grating spectrometers covering the range UV-VIS-NIR-SWIR (270-2385 
nm)  with  a  global  coverage  every  day  (and  more  frequently  in  the  Arctic).  It  can  map  ozone, 
formaldehyde, methane, NO2, SO2, CO and aerosols.  

Sentinel-6  will  provide  radar  altimetry  data  to  measure  global  sea-surface  height,  primarily  for 
operational  oceanography  and  for  climate  studies.  Its  secondary  mission  is  radio  occultation,  an 
essential  input  for  climate  monitoring  and  weather  forecasting.  There  will  be  two  satellites.  The  first 
launch is planned in Nov 2020.  

4.1.3  Copernicus contributing missions 

The main Copernicus contributing missions that are relevant for the  Arctic region and  with  an  active 
status are detailed hereafter. 

4.1.3.1  France 

Pleiades is a constellation of two satellites (Pleiades 1A and 1B) in orbits coordinated so as to provide 
frequent revisit time (up to daily with both satellites in orbit) globally and with a spatial resolution of 70 
cm. The instrument on board PLEIADES is HiRI - High-Resolution Imagery. Pleiades’ key asset is an 
extremely sensitive  optical instrument that reduces the exposure time needed for each image, giving 
each satellite the ability to acquire up to 500 images a day.  

4.1.3.2  Germany 

TerraSar-X  (TSX)  is  an  imaging  X-band  radar  EO  satellite  providing  high  quality  imagery  and 
topographic information. It is a joint venture being carried out under a public-private-partnership between 
the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and EADS Astrium.  

35 

 
 
 
                                           
 
TerraSAR-X  operates  with  TanDEM-X  acquiring  high-resolution  and  wide-area  radar  images 
independent of the weather conditions. The two satellites feature a unique geometric accuracy that is 
unmatched by any other spaceborne sensor. 

TerraSAR-X data  has a  wide range  of applications (e.g. land use /  land cover  mapping, topographic 
mapping,  forest  monitoring,  emergency  response  monitoring,  environmental  monitoring,  maritime 
surveillance, sea ice cover and  oil spill detection)  with a high resolution (1 m to 16 m depending on 
operation  mode).  Besides  the  SAR  payload,  it  has  the  IGOR  (Integrated  GPS  Occultation  Receiver) 
which  allows  producing  temperature/humidity  sounding  with  highest  vertical  resolution  for  space 
weather applications.  

The Terrasar-X new generation is already planned by DLR and will have a significant contribution to 
temperature and humidity soundings. 

4.1.3.3 

Italy 

COSMO-SkyMed (CSM) is a series of four satellites for SAR observation in X-band capable of operating 
in all visibility conditions at high resolution and in real time. The overall objective of this program is global 
EO and the relevant  data  exploitation for the  needs of the military community as well as for the civil 
(institutional,  commercial)  community.  One  important  aspect  of  the  mission  is  the  quick  provision  of 
imagery for disaster and emergency management due to its daily global coverage capability.  

CSM is the largest investment in Space for EO by Italy since 2011. Since 2009, CSM is a Copernicus 
Contributing Mission.  

4.1.3.4  Spain 

PAZ  is an X-band SAR spacecraft based on the TerraSAR-X platform, to serve  the security and the 
defence  needs.  PAZ  includes  a  polarimetric  Global  Navigation  Satellite  System  (GNSS)  Radio-
Occultation (RO) payload. The PAZ mission was initially designed to carry a SAR as primary and sole 
payload,  and  included  an  IGOR+  advanced  GPS  (Global  Positioning  System)  receiver  and 
corresponding antennas for precise orbit determination. The design and software of this GPS receiver 
allows the tracking of occulting signals, that is: signals transmitted by GPS satellites setting below the 
horizon  of  the  Earth  (or  rising  above  it).  The  mission  is  operated  by  IEEC/ICE-CSIC,  Hisdesat  and 
MCINN. 

Deimos-1 provides medium resolution with very wide swath imagery. The mission is fully owned and 
operated by the Spanish company Deimos Imaging and was launched in 2009. The multispectral imager 
(SLIM6) allows to get high resolution land observation, ice shelf crack or for disaster monitoring.  

Deimos-2 is a very high resolution multispectral optical satellite (75 cm pan-sharpened) that allows land 
observation monitoring. Deimos-2 operates with a network of four ground stations.  

4.1.3.5  Canada 

RadarSat-2 collects global geospatial SAR imagery in C-band through cloud cover and darkness, with 
more  than  50  imaging  modes,  multiple  polarimetric  options  and  massive  data  collection  capacity. 
Radarsat-2 images the Earth at spatial resolutions ranging from 3 to 100 meters. It is a jointly-funded 
satellite mission of CSA (Canadian Space Agency) and MDA (MacDonald Dettwiler Associates Ltd. of 
Richmond, BC). The POD (Precise Orbit Determination) software in combination with the onboard GPS 
receivers permits accurate real time orbit information. The key features of the mission for the Arctic are 
the monitoring of the Arctic sea lines and territories,  maritime surveillance,  the  provision of seasonal 
variations of glacier ice flow, and sea ice monitoring. 

RadarSat-2 is followed up by RCM, Radarsat Constellation Mission, that is also a C-band SAR relevant 
for the Arctic, but is not yet a Copernicus contributing mission – see section 4.2.4.1. 

4.1.4  Overview of user-required functions versus Sentinels 

Table  5    links  functionalities  (“functions”)  required  by  users  in  the  Arctic  (the  lines)  with  Copernicus 
Sentinel EO satellites that provide information relevant to those (the columns).  

The function refers to the measuring, detecting or mapping (as applicable) of the mentioned object or 
phenomenon.  No  separate  entries  are  made  for  the  capacity  to  measure  changes.  E.g.,  damage 
assessment is no separate function in the table but falls under “buildings” as changes in that.  

36 

The functions are a level more detailed than application domains such as “climate change”, “maritime 
transport”,  “offshore  exploration”,  “border  security”,  “emergency  management”,  etc.  Each  of  these 
application domains will have (somewhat different) requirements in a number of the listed functions.  

Satellites are grouped in one column if they are sufficiently similar.  

The  level  of  aggregation  of  the  functions  in  the  table  still  does  not  show  whether  an  actual  user 
requirement is satisfied. Additional parameters such as the spatial scales, temporal availability, update 
rate, potential integration in prediction services, etc., are not analysed here. Therefore, the table only 
gives indications about which EO satellites may be used for which Arctic user-required functions.  

Table  5:  Summary  table  of  the  Arctic  user-required  functions  classified  according  to  land,  coastal,  marine  and 
atmosphere domains for the Sentinels satellites. Entries: + means the satellite provides very limited information for 
the function, ++ moderate information, +++ very good information, and empty means no information or unknown. 

Satellite 

Function 

Land 
Thematic mapping 
Terrain height (incl. ground 
displacement) 
River and lake level, flooding 
River and lake ice 
Snow cover 
Snow thickness 
Snow melt 
Glacier and ice sheet height 
Glacier runoff 
Subsidence (used as proxy for 
permafrost) 
Roads 
Buildings, urban 
Other infrastructure 
Vegetation 
Forest 
Carbon cycle 
Biodiversity 
Prospecting 
Mining 
Surface contaminants(a) 
Land degradation 
Land and inland water oil pollution 
Land border permeability 
Land border crossing activities 
Terrain trafficability 
Land surface temperature 
Fire 
Coastal 
Coastline, coastal erosion 
Ports, coastal infrastructure 
Marine 
Ocean winds 
Ocean surface waves 
Sea surface temperature 
Ocean colour 
Internal waves 

1
-
t
n
e
S

+ 
+++ 

+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 

++ 

+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

++ 
+ 
++ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 

+++ 
++ 

+++ 
++ 

++ 

p
5
/
5
-
t
n
e
S

6
-
t
n
e
  S

2
-
t
n
e
S

++ 

3
-
t
n
e
S

++ 
++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

++ 

+ 
++ 

+++ 
++ 

+ 

++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

+ 
++ 
+ 
+++ 
+++ 

++ 

+ 
+ 

+++ 
+++ 

+ 

++ 

37 

++ 
+++ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sea level, sea surface height 
Currents, circulation and fronts 
Bathymetry 
Sea ice cover and edge 
Sea ice concentration 
Sea ice type 
Sea ice thickness 
Sea ice ridges 
Sea ice surface temperature 
Icebergs 
Offshore structures 
Fisheries, fishing ships 
Merchant ships 
Small boats and other marine targets 
Marine oil pollution 
Sea border crossing activities 
Atmosphere 
Wind(b) 
Temperature 
Precipitation 
Atmospheric water content 
Cloud cover 
CO2 
Other GHG 
Air pollution and trace gases 
Aerosols 

+++ 
+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 
++ 
+ 
+++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
+++ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
++ 

++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

+++ 
+++ 

++ 
+++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 
++ 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

(a): E.g., mercury released from melting glaciers and permafrost that poisons food and water. 
(b): Except wind over the sea surface which is under marine. 

4.1.5  Copernicus Services 

4.1.5.1  The Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) 

The  Copernicus  Global  Land  Service  (CGLS)  is  a  component  of  the  Land  Monitoring  Core  Service 
(LMCS) of Copernicus. CGLS operationally provides a series of bio-geophysical products on the status 
and evolution of the land surface, at global scale and at mid to low spatial resolution (i.e. with a resolution 
of about 300 m and 1 km respectively). The products are used to monitor the vegetation, the water cycle, 
the energy budget and the terrestrial cryosphere. The products are validated and externally reviewed, 
and are available as a time series with ensured continuity from about the year 2000 or later (depending 
of the parameter) until present. Most products are provided in near-real-time (NRT), i.e. every 10 days.  

CGLS uses data from the following instruments/satellites: 

o  Sentinel 1, 2 and 3 

o  PROBA (ESA) 

o  SPOT (France) 

o  SEVIRI onboard MSG (EUMETSAT) 

o  GOES (NOAA) 

o  AATSR and MERIS onboard ENVISAT (ESA) 

o  MODIS onboard Terra and Acqua (NASA) 

o  VIIRS onboard Suomi-NPP (NOAA/NASA) 

o  SSMIS onboard DMSP (U.S. Air Force) 

o  ASCAT onboard Metop (EUMETSAT) 

Currently provided parameters:  

o  Specific cryosphere parameters: snow cover, snow water equivalent, lake ice extent. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o  Other parameters with relevance for the Arctic: global land cover, vegetation parameters 
(Leaf  Area  Index  (LAI),  Normalized  Difference  Vegetation  Index  (NDVI)),  surface  soil 
moisture,  soil  water  index,  land  surface  temperature,  surface  albedo,  water  quality 
(turbidity).  

Most products are available up to northern latitudes of 70N  – 85N, depending on the parameter. The 
two  exceptions  are  surface  soil  moisture  and  lake  ice  extent,  which  are  only  available  as  regional 
products for Europe and the Baltic sea region, respectively.  

All data products provided by CGLS are accessible for free through a dedicated web portal:   

http://land.copernicus.vgt.vito.be/PDF/portal/Application.html#Home 

4.1.5.2  The Copernicus Marine Environment Service (CMEMS) 

It  relies  on  a  network  of  European  marine  data  producers  that  provide  state-of-the-art  scientific 
knowledge in order to build a portfolio of ocean data products. 

The CMEMS producers are categorized into two categories of centres:  

Thematic  Data  Assembly  Centers  (TAC)  that  process  data  acquired  from  satellite  and  in  situ 
observations into real-time and reprocessed (20  years archive)  products. There  are 8 TACs that are 
summarized in Table 6: highlighting in particular the products that are relevant for the Arctic. 

Table 6: List of the different Thematic Data Assembly Centres, with the observations available and the specificity 
of the products for the Arctic region, infrastructure partners and users. 

TAC 

Products 

Infrastructure 
partners 

Arctic Specificity 

Users 

Sea Ice 

Operational  multi-
data 
mission 
products 
derived 
from 
upstream 
satellite data (L2) 

ice  variables 

Sea 
and time series 

Primary 
SAR 
Sentinel-1  

data 

source: 
from 

Ice chart products 

from  Envisat 

SIT 
and Cryosat-2 

Climate models 

and 

NWP 
Ocean/Ice 
hindcast models 

Environmental 
agencies 

EUMETSAT  OSI 
(Ocean  and  Sea 
Ice) SAF 

Automatic near real 
time  ice  parameter 
products 

Copernicus  Climate 
Change 
Services 
(C3S) 

Ice 

National 
services, 
meteorological 
institutes 
from 
Denmark,  Norway 
and Finland 

IFREMER, 
NERSC, 
British 
Survey 

DTU, 
AWI, 
Antarctic 

Homogenization  of 
SAR products  

Iceberg  monitoring, 
robust ice thickness 
information 

Two  new  products 
as of 9/07/19: 

- SAR Sea Ice Berg 
Concentration 
product  

- Sea Ice Thickness 
(SIT) 
reprocessed 
(Arctic Ocean) 

Surface wind 

products 
from 

Data 
derived 
scatterometers 
satellite missions 

EUMETSAT  OSI 
(Ocean  and  Sea 
Ice) SAF 

Dutch 
Meteorological 
Institute 
Ifremer 

(KNMI), 

Operational  Met 
Services, 
and 
analyses 
ocean  models 
Research 
or 
Environmental 
monitoring. 

Sea level 

track  Sea 
Along 
height 
surface 
observation 
data 
derived mainly from 
Sentinel-3A, 

CLS, 
LEGOS, IMEDEA 

CNES, 

Dedicated  product 
in  NRT 
the 
Arctic 

for 

Data  assimilation 
and 
regional 
models validation 

39 

 
 
 
 
INS 

Saral/Altika, 
Cryosat-2  

In situ temperature, 
salinity, 
currents, 
waves  and  other 
variables 

Near real time 

Delay mode  

Ocean 
forecasting 
centres  

Collaboration  with 
EUROGOOS, 
SeaDataNet 
international 
programs 
GOSUD, 
OceanSITES) 

(Argo, 

and 

Ocean colour 

Satellite 
colour 
from 
sensors 
MODIS mainly)  

ocean 
products 
satellite 
(MERS, 

National  Research 
Council of Italy, Acri-
ST, PML, Helmholtz 
Zentrum,  Aequora 
consulting 

Regional product 

Ocean  models 
Research 
or 
Environmental 
monitoring 

Sea 
Temperature 

Surface 

Satellite  data  from 
NASA, 
NOAA, 
EUMETSAT  OSI-
SAF, ESA 

National  Research 
Council  of 
Italy, 
Meteorological 
institutes 
(UK, 
France,  Denmark), 
Ifremer 

Global 
product 

/ 

regional  

NRT 
reprocessed 

and 

Ocean  models 
Research 
or 
Environmental 
monitoring 

Wave 

from 
Derived 
(Sentinel 
altimeter 
AltiKa; 
3A-3B; 
Cryosat-2) 
and 
SAR  (Sentinel  1A, 
Sentinel 1B) 

CLS, Ifremer 

Near Real time  

Ocean  models 
Research 
or 
Environmental 
monitoring 

Multi 
Observations 

Input  data 
different 
satellite and in-situ 

from 
sensors, 

CLS, 
National 
Research Council of 
Italy, LSCE, LOV 

An example of sea ice concentration in the Arctic Ocean provided by the CMEMS service is displayed 
in Figure 15. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15: Sea ice concentration charts from the Copernicus Marine Environment Service (CMEMS).  

Monitoring and Forecasting Centers (MFC) run ocean numerical models assimilating the above TAC 
data to generate reanalyses (20 years in the past), analyses (today) and 10-day forecasts of the ocean. 
There are 7 MFCs distributed according to the geographical coverage. 

The ARC MFC is the monitoring forecasting centre for the whole Arctic. It provides the most accurate 
forecast and reanalysis products and ensures the consistency of the information on sea ice, ocean, and 
biology and surface waves. The system is based on a numerical ocean model assimilating in situ 
and satellite data. Arctic MFC has 5 products: two near-real-time forecasting products for the ocean 
physical conditions and the corresponding biological forecast restricted to the lower trophic. ARC MFC 
is led by NERSC and two Norwegian consortium members the Meteorologisk Institutt and the Institute 
of Marine Research (IMR). 

4.1.5.3  The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) 

CAMS  provides  consistent  and  quality-controlled  global  data  for  six  thematic  topic  areas:  air  quality, 
policy  tools,  solar  energy,  ozone  layer  and  UV  radiation,  emissions  and  surface  fluxes,  and  climate 
forcing. CAMS uses satellite data and observations, together with computer models to track the transport 
and accumulation of atmospheric pollutants in Europe and globally, thus including the Arctic. The main 
services are: 

  analyses and forecasts of atmospheric composition at global (40 km resolution) and regional 

scale (10 km resolution) 

 

reanalyses of the atmospheric composition in the past, for the period 2003-2018 at global scale 
(80 km resolution), 2012-2017 at regional scale (10 km resolution) 

  Global  Fires  Assimilation  System  (GFAS),  monitoring  of  wildfire  emissions  and  pollution 
(https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-monitors-unprecedented-

the  Arctic 

transport 
wildfires-arctic) 

in 

  ozone  layer  monitoring  and  forecast  (https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/mini-ozone-hole-

predicted-copernicus-atmosphere-monitoring-service-appears-over-western-canada) 

41 

 
 
 
the 

All 
(https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/data).  

services 

freely 

are 

available 

from 

the 

CAMS 

data 

catalogue 

Satellite  observations  used  by  CAMS  constrain  the  model  simulations  to  ensure  the  most  accurate 
forecasts through data  assimilation.  A  list of satellites from European space  programs is provided in 
Table  7.  The  full  list  of  satellite  observations  for  the  different  services  of  CAMS  may  be  found  at 
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/satellite-observations.     

Table 7 : List of European active satellites used by CAMS through data assimilation in the global real-time forecast 
and global reanalysis systems. The different instruments on board the various European satellites are indicated 
with the corresponding parameters measured. 

Instrument 

Satellite 

Space Agency 

Parameters 

IASI 

METOP-A, METOP-B, 
METOP-C 

EUMETSAT/CNES 

CO, O3, CH4, CO2 

GOME-2 

METOP-A, METOP-B  EUMETSAT/ESA 

HCHO,  O3,  NO2, 
SO2 

PMAp 

METOP-A, METOP-B  EUMETSAT 

AOD 

TROPOMI 

Sentinel-5p 

ESA/NSO 

O3, NO2, SO2, CO, 
HCHO, CH4 

SLSTR 

SEVIRI 

Sentinel-3 

ESA/EUMETSAT 

AOD, FRP 

METEOSAT, MSG  

EUMETSAT 

O3,  AOD,  FRP, 
Cloud information 

(CO: carbon monoxide; O3: ozone; CH4: methane; CO2: carbon dioxide; AOD: aerosol optical depth; 
NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide; HCHO: formaldehyde; FRP: fire radiative power). 

4.1.5.4  The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) 

C3S  integrates  a  dedicated  service  for  Global  Shipping  using  high  quality  climate  data  to  help  for 
decision-making  processes,  support  medium  and  long-term  planning  for  the  shipping  sector.  The 
indicators  produced  by  the  Service  are  derived  from  reanalysis,  seasonal  forecasts  or  climate 
projections, so the timescales of interest range from a month to several decades. 

The  Global  Shipping  Service uses seasonal  forecast  and  reanalysis  data  available  on  the  CDS 
(Climate  Data  Store)  for  wind,  waves,  ocean  current,  sea surface  pressure,  air  and  sea  surface 
temperature. For the ice-related indicators, the Service uses historical data and climate projections for 
ice thickness and concentration. 

The main objective of the Service is to develop tools that convert raw input data into useful indicators 
for decision-making. The main tools being developed as part of the Service are: 

a fuel-consumption model allowing users to calculate the impact of met ocean conditions and seasonal 
forecasts on the cost of a given route. 

an arctic route availability model allowing to estimate the number of days per year a given route will be 
available based on projected ice conditions in the Arctic. 

an  iceberg  drifting  model  allowing  users  to  define  the  iceberg  limit  line  given  historical  iceberg 
distributions and seasonal forecast of sea and air temperature, wind and currents. 

ERA5, the ECMWF’s new atmospheric reanalysis provides a detailed picture of the global weather 
and  climate  back  to  1979.  Reanalysis  datasets  are  used  for  climate  monitoring,  climate  studies  and 
meteorological  research,  and  they  underpin  an  increasing  variety  of  sectoral  applications.  They  also 
support numerical weather prediction, for example by providing a reference against which the quality of 
forecasts from successive model versions can be compared. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ERA5 is openly accessible via the C3S Climate Data Store. It contains estimates of variables such as 
air temperature, pressure and wind at different altitudes, rainfall, soil moisture content and ocean wave 
height. The on-going dedicated reanalysis covering the Arctic region is presented as a future synergistic 
application in section 8. 

4.1.5.5  The Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) 

The service uses satellite imagery and other geospatial data to monitor disasters, providing information 
throughout  the  whole  disaster  cycle,  including  prevention,  preparedness,  response  and  post-event 
information on damage and recovery. CEMS has two main components, one focusing on the Mapping 
of disasters and a second one dealing with Early Warning and Monitoring of floods, wildfires and 
droughts.  

The  Mapping  service  provides  free  of  charge  maps  of  natural  disasters,  human-made  emergency 
situations and humanitarian crises throughout the world. The CEMS Mapping service produces maps 
with two types of provision: the rapid mapping and the risk and recovery mapping. 

The rapid mapping service provides geospatial information within hours or days from the activation in 
support of emergency management activities immediately following a disaster.  

Several events have been registered with the emergency service for the Arctic region. These events are 
mainly related to the monitoring of iceberg drift and its associated risk for the population (Figure 16).  

Figure 16. Example of activation received by the Copernicus Emergency service on 15th July 2018 for iceberg delineation 
and risk assessment using satellite images from Spot 6/7 for the pre-event and Cosmo-Skymed as a post-event image.  

Recently,  an  increased  number  of  fires  in  the  boreal  zone  and  in  Greenland  have  led  to  several 
activations of the EMS service for evaluating the fire damages. The CEMS rapid mapping was activated 
by Denmark on behalf of Greenland on 12 August 201911. A First Estimate Product was provided giving 

11 https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSR378 

43 

 
 
 
                                           
location  of active flames, fire parameter. The delineation  product  used the satellite imagery from the 
DEIMOS-2 satellite which indicated that the burn area spread over 6.29 km2. Damage assessment was 
performed on the 22nd August using SPOT-6/7 (Figure 17).  

Figure 17: Damage assessment showing final burn area in Sisimiut, Greenland using Spot 6/7 images.  

For these activations satellite images are key to perform the evaluation. A frequent revisit of the satellite 
is also desired to increase the responsiveness of the evaluation.  

  Risk and recovery mapping 

The provision of geospatial information in this case is done on-demand and is not related to immediate 
response. It is used for prevention, preparedness, disaster risk reduction and recovery phases.  The 
EMS Mapping service can be triggered only by or through an Authorised User (AU). Authorised Users 
include  National  Focal  Points  (NFPs)  in  the  EU  Member  States  and  countries  participating  in  the 
Copernicus programme, as well as European Commission services and the European External Action 
Service (EEAS). 

  Early Warning and Monitoring systems for floods, fires and droughts 

For the Arctic region, another very relevant component of CEMS is the Early Warning and Monitoring 
systems for floods, fires and droughts. Different from the Mapping component, the CEMS Early Warning 
and Monitoring systems provide a continuous monitoring of floods, wildfires and droughts and do not 
need to be activated by the end user. 

Information  System  (GWIS,  https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/).  Although  not 

The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) is the main CEMS system providing continuous 
monitoring of wildfires in the pan-European region, including Europe, North Africa and Middle East. The 
JRC is currently working on the development of a service for wildfire monitoring at the global scale, the 
fully 
Global  Wildfire 
operational, GWIS uses satellite imagery from different sensors from NASA and Copernicus and is able 
to monitor active fires and map burnt areas globally. Figure 18 shows the map of burnt areas produced 
by GWIS for the Artic region in the first ten months of 2019, comparing the trend of 2019 with that of the 
previous  18  years.  The  extent  of  burnt  areas  has  been  estimated  by  the  Global  Wildfire  Information 
System using the JRC’s global database of wildfires, derived from data acquired by the NASA MODIS 
sensor.   

44 

 
 
 
Figure 18: Overview of wildfires monitored in the  Arctic region between January and October 2019. Estimated burnt 
areas provided by the GWIS are depicted in red. 

4.1.5.6  The Copernicus Security Service (CSS) 

The Security Service is the smallest of the Copernicus Services and the last one to be developed. It 
provides information in response to Europe’s security challenges. It covers prevention, preparedness 
and response. It currently has three components:  

  Maritime Surveillance, 

  Border Surveillance, 

  Support to EU External Action. 

These  three  components  are  often  referred  to  as  services,  e.g.  “Copernicus  Maritime  Surveillance 
(CMS)  Service”  etc.,  but  they  are  sub-services  of  the  CSS.  None  of  the  components  is  particularly 
focussed on the Arctic, but all may have application there.  

Unlike  the  other  five  services,  the  CSS  is  not  open  /  public,  but  only  intended  for  authorised 
governmental users. It works on demand, following specific activation requests that need to go through 
designated contact points for approval. Authorised users include MS national administrations and EU 
bodies.  

As Copernicus was designed primarily for global monitoring, the space component of Copernicus, the 
Sentinel satellites, is not optimised for security applications. In particular, their resolution is not very high. 
This is why the third party missions play a big role in collecting data for the CSS (VHR optical and HR 
SAR satellites). Like the other Copernicus services, the CSS information products are not derived solely 
from satellite data, but also incorporate non-satellite data coming from intelligence sources.  

Many security applications require timeliness, so the CSS has a rapid response time for a number of 
products and services (in common with the Copernicus Emergency Management Service).  

45 

 
 
Each component is operationally run by a different “Entrusted Entity” (EE); in the case of CSS these are 
all EU Agencies. The EEs, in turn, subcontract a significant part of the operational production to industry. 
Each component has a reference list (catalogue) of products and services. The three components are 
detailed in the following.  

CSS Maritime Surveillance (CMS)12 

This component is implemented by EMSA, the European Maritime Safety Agency. It supports improved 
monitoring of activities at sea. Application areas include fisheries control, maritime safety and security, 
law enforcement, customs activities, marine environment (pollution monitoring). 

Automatic ship self-reporting systems, mainly AIS, provide important non-EO data to combine with the 
EO data in the maritime surveillance process. Many of these systems use long-range communication to 
transmit small amounts of data (identity, position, speed, etc.) from the ship to the shore; for this, they 
rely on satellites. 

A Product Catalogue (EMSA 2018) specifies in detail the attributes of the products and services.  

For fisheries control in EU, third country and international waters, satellite images are also used to verify 
the data that ships report via their automatic reporting systems (VMS, AIS) and 

 

check if there are ships in zones that are closed for fishing; 

  monitor fishing activities in areas that are not subject to mandatory reporting (some High Seas 

areas);  

 

look for transhipping near fishing zones;  

  monitor aquaculture (presence of fish cages that float near the coast, their movements as they 

are being towed, supply vessels in their vicinity); 

In this way, they contribute to implementing the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and globally to 
combatting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing.  

An important user of the service is the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA).  

Under maritime safety and security, satellite images are used to:  

  Monitor the aftermath of accidents and incidents at sea;  

  Support maritime search and rescue; 

  Support vessel traffic routing; 

  Track floating objects that could pose a risk, such as icebergs or abandoned ships adrift;  

  Locate, identify and track vessels of interest and/or inspect their behaviour. 

Functions under law enforcement encompass: 

  Support the prevention of piracy and armed robbery at sea; 

  Monitor ships that have been hijacked; 

  Combat trafficking and smuggling (with high interest for narcotics and arms);  

  Combat illegal pollution.  

Satellite images are used in this context to detect and track suspicious targets, confirm their presence 
or  absence  in  areas  indicated  by  intelligence,  inspect  ships’  decks  for  compromising  objects  or 
configurations, monitor shorelines and ports, and detect suspicious behaviour.  

Marine  environment  monitoring  concerns  mostly  oil  pollution.  Ships,  oil  platforms  and  pipelines  may 
discharge (small amounts of) oil or dirty bilge water which is in most cases illegal but can be readily 
detected on SAR images, even some time (up to days) after the discharge took place. The results from 
the satellite data may be used to dispatch (national) surveillance airplanes for follow-up inspection. For 
that  reason,  analysis  results  can  be  available  at  the  national  customer  within  30  min  after  image 
acquisition. Combining the location of the spill by the time it is detected with the recent AIS data history 

12 Most of the information is based on EMSA 2018; European Maritime Safety Agency 2018; 2019  

46 

                                           
helps to identify the perpetrator. Monitoring for illegal oil discharge is typically a pre-scheduled routine 
activity (so scheduling needs no hurry, but image results delivery does).  

Large amounts of oil may be released following accidents. In that case, satellite images are essential to 
monitor the spread of the spill. This requires emergency service activations.  

EMSA already operated the CleanSeaNet service for these purposes in European waters before the 
advent of Copernicus. However, Copernicus enables the extension of the service beyond Europe.  

The Joint Arctic Command of the Danish Defence Command has been a recent customer for monitoring 
the waters around Greenland for ship-sourced oil pollution.  

Several of the above application areas are provided to international organisations, e.g. in the context of 
search  and  rescue,  anti-piracy  or  IUU.  In  that  case,  they  can  be  considered  to  promote  the  EU’s 
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). An example is recent provision of satellite images and 
derived products to UNODC for exercises in West Africa related to counter-piracy, combating maritime 
crime and maritime security capacity building.  

CSS Maritime Surveillance uses the following satellites (all Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Polar Orbit):  

  Optical:  

o  WorldView-1 through -4 

o  GeoEye-1 

o  Pleiades (1A and 1B) 

o  DEIMOS-1 and -2 

o  SPOT-6 and -7 

o  Landsat-8 

  SAR:  

o  Sentinel-1 

o  TerraSAR-X 

o  RADARSAT-2 

CSS Border Surveillance13 

The Border Surveillance component is implemented by Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard 
Agency. This is done  in the context of EUROSUR, the information-exchange framework designed to 
improve the management of Europe’s external borders14.  

EUROSUR  aims  to  support  MSs  by  increasing  their  situational  awareness  and  reaction  capability  in 
combating cross-border crime, tackling irregular migration and preventing loss of migrant lives at sea. 
The backbone of EUROSUR is a network of National Coordination Centres (NCCs), which group the 
authorities responsible for border control in a given MS. The NCCs collect local and national information 
about what takes place at the border, including illegal border crossings and criminal activity. The  data 
processed by the NCC personnel creates a national situational picture. The NCCs are also responsible 
for sharing the relevant information with other MS and Frontex. Based on this input and information from 
other sources, Frontex creates the European situational picture and the common pre-frontier intelligence 
picture (focused on areas beyond the Schengen Area and EU borders). 

In the light of security challenges in the area of external borders, the objective of the Border Surveillance 
component is to increase situational awareness by mapping, monitoring and providing risk assessment. 

The data from the EO satellites, optical  and radar  is combined  with that from other surveillance and 
intelligence  sources.  For  use  over  sea,  much  the  same  auxiliary  data  are  used  as  for  the  Maritime 
Surveillance service component (ship reporting data, met/ocean data, hydrographic data). For use over 
land,  likewise  much  the  same  auxiliary  data  are  used  as  for  the  SEA  service  component  (below; 

13 Most information comes from the Copernicus and Frontex web sites. 
14 Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of 22 Oct 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur), https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1052.  

47 

 
                                           
topographic and thematic map data). In addition, ELINT/SIGINT may be used if available (which in fact 
can also be used for some Maritime Surveillance application areas).  

The service component includes the following specific sub-services: 

  Coastal Monitoring; 

  Pre-frontier Monitoring; 

  Reference Imagery/Mapping; 

  Surveillance of Maritime Area of Interest; 

  Vessel Detection; 

  Vessel Tracking and Reporting; 

  Vessel Anomaly Detection; 

  Environmental Assessment; 

  Large Area Pre-frontier Monitoring; 

  Multi-sensor Monitoring; 

  EO Reconnaissance; 

  Cross border crime surveillance service. 

(NB,  other  sources15  give  instead  of  the  last  three  bullets:  ProDetect  Service  and  MUSO  Migration 
Analytical Assessment.)  

These are designed to support, in areas identified through risk analysis, the operational assessment of 
irregular migration and cross-border crime.  

CSS Support to EU External Action (SEA)16 

This service component is implemented by the EU Satellite Centre (EUSATCEN). It  is an operational 
European  geospatial  intelligence  service,  in  support  of  the  EU’s  CFSP/CSDP,  crisis  management 
(prevention, preparedness and response), and monitoring of security issues outside the mainland EU 
territory.  It  should  help  to  prevent  global  and  trans-regional  threats  to  have  a  destabilising  effect  on 
societies  and  economies.  It  supports  strategic  decision  making  and  planning  at  various  institutional 
levels, as well as operations and intervention.  

The satellites used are  optical  and  SAR. The required imagery  is requested by  EUSATCEN through 
ESA’s Copernicus Space Component Data Access (CSCDA).  

The service can be activated on short notice for a single look. It can also carry out monitoring campaigns 
of longer duration to look for changes. Satellite images are analysed with processing techniques and by 
image  analysts  with  specialised  knowledge,  making  use  of  auxiliary  non-satellite  information.  Best 
response times are specified as “a day or two”. 

Authorised users are: 

  European Commission 

  EEAS 

  CSDP Missions and Operations 

  MS authorities (MoD, MoFA, Intelligence services) 

 

International organisations such as under UN 

Relevance to the Arctic and future developments 

15 https://www.copernicus.eu/en/observer-copernicus-eyes-on-EU-external-borders 
16 Most information comes from (European Commission 2018b; 2018c). 

48 

 
 
                                           
It  is  obvious  that  the  Maritime  Surveillance  component  of  the  CSS  is  very  relevant  to  the  Arctic.  As 
mentioned, it is already being used today for maritime oil pollution monitoring around Greenland at the 
request  of  the  Danish  responsible  authorities.  As  ship  traffic  increases  in  the  Arctic,  the  risk  and 
occurrence of oil spills will also increase. The isolated nature of the Arctic might tempt ships to dump 
dirty bilge water, a common practice, in the hope that this is not noticed. The existence of a monitoring 
capacity is thus important.  

Also the fisheries monitoring and control application is most relevant. While waters in the 200 nautical 
mile EEZ can  be protected under national jurisdiction, those beyond that  are the High  Seas that  are 
open to all. They can only  be protected through international agreements. The recent “Agreement to 
Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean”17 aims to prevent unregulated 
fishing in the High Seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean to ensure the conservation and sustainable 
use of fish stocks. Under the agreement, ten parties have agreed to ban commercial fishing for an initial 
period of 16 years (to be extended automatically every five years), until scientists confirm that it can be 
done sustainably and until the parties agree on mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. 
The area in question, where up to now no fishing has taken place, is about the size of the Med Sea. The 
signatories include the Arctic states Canada, Norway, Russia, Denmark (for Greenland and the Faroe 
Islands) and the U.S., as well as the major fishing nations Iceland, Japan, South Korea, China and the 
EU. The agreement was signed on 3 Oct 2018, but its ratification is still ongoing  – the EU ratified by 
Council decision on 4 Mar 201918 and the U.S. most recently in August 201919. This makes it possible 
to follow up with enforcement actions, rendering the monitoring results actionable.  

The Maritime Surveillance component already now lists icebergs as a topic in the context of maritime 
safety. It would have a very good potential to extend its service to Arctic navigation safety.  

As to Border Surveillance, there are EU borders in the Arctic, primarily with Russia: the land border with 
Finland, and also with Norway (Schengen partner). Likewise there are sea borders with Russia as well 
as EEZ borders on the High Seas. When we consider Greenland, there is also a long sea border with 
Canada. The Arctic sea borders receive little attention today, but with increasing ship traffic that may 
change a bit.  

The Support to External Action component is today little used in the Arctic, but if MS and EU bodies 
increase their interest in the Arctic that may also change. Whereas conflict-related observations seem 
a long way off, it might find justification in monitoring the build-up of infrastructures and activities outside 
EU territory in the Arctic.  

As to technological evolution, all EO services including Copernicus are presently looking at the handling 
of Big Data with the help of cloud computing and Machine Learning (ML). As the amount of EO and 
other data increases dramatically, their analysis should become much faster by applying ML techniques. 
Such  developments  should  and  will  also  be  applied  for  the  CSS,  by  the  Entrusted  Entities  and  in 
particular by their industrial contractors. Significant developments in the automatic processing of satellite 
images with sea ice are still needed however. (Mostly on SAR images that survey wide areas and are 
not sensitive to cloud cover.) Also the large flow of Sentinel images, which are continuously collecting 
over the Arctic, should be better exploited, as medium resolution data that is available with a high update 
rate in combination with high resolution data from third party missions that is available only at limited 
locations and times.  

4.2  Other EO satellite missions 

4.2.1  ESA Earth Explorer missions 

ESA  Earth  Explorer  missions  provide  an  important  contribution  to  the  global  endeavour  to  further 
enhance our understanding of Earth. 

The SMOS satellite launched on 02 November 2009 (expected EOL ≥2020) offers crucial data on soil 
moisture and ocean salinity, but it can also map the thickness of ice floating in the polar seas. It carries 
an  innovative  passive  synthetic  aperture  microwave  radiometer  to  capture  images  of  ‘brightness 
temperature’. These images correspond to microwave radiation emitted from Earth’s surface and can 

17https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/38356/st10788-en18.pdf.  
18https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/04/central-arctic-eu-to-enter-agreement-against-

unregulated-fishing/.  

19 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/08/us-ratifies-moratorium-fishing-high-arctic-seas.  

49 

                                           
be related to soil moisture and ocean salinity. In addition, the radiometer, which uses a wavelength of 
21 cm (L-band), is also able to detect sea ice.  

Cryosat-2  is  the  operational  ESA  Earth  explorer  mission  which  is  the  most  relevant  for  the  Arctic, 
launched on 08 April 2010 (expected EOL ≥2020). It has become the first satellite to provide information 
on Arctic sea-ice thickness in near-real time to aid maritime activities in the polar region. The mission 
objectives are to monitor variations in the thickness of polar ice through use of a satellite in LEO. The 
information provided about the behaviour of coastal glaciers that drain thinning ice sheets will be key to 
better predictions of future sea level rise.  

Swarm was successfully launched on 22 November 2013.  It consists of three satellites mapping the 
Earth’s magnetic field every 90 minutes. These observations can be used to update the World Magnetic 
model, which is used in many navigation systems. It must be noted that the Earth’s North magnetic pole 
is currently drifting at a rate of 55 to 60 km per year. 

Aeolus is the first satellite mission to provide profiles of Earth’s wind globally. It was launched on 22 
August 2018. Its near-real time observations are since 12 May 2020 made available in near real time 
through EUMETCast (EUMETSAT dissemination system) and the World Meteorological Organization’s 
Global Telecommunication System (GTS). Since January 2020, ECMWF include Aeolus data in their 
weather forecasts. These observations are set to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts as well as 
advance our understanding of atmospheric dynamics and processes linked to climate variability. Aeolus’ 
Aladin (Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument) is the only instrument that provides wind profiles from 
space. Wind profiles, especially over remote areas, are very important for numerical weather prediction 
and to better understand global wind circulation. 

4.2.2  Other European satellite missions 

4.2.2.1  Finland 

ICEYE's overall mission is to enable better decision making by providing timely and reliable EO data. It 
is  the  first  proof-of-concept  microsatellite  mission  with  a  SAR  sensor  as  its  payload.  ICEYE-X1  was 
launched on January 12th, 2018. ICEYE is building a constellation of 18 SAR satellites by end of 2020 
and will enable a 3 hour on average revisit rate around the globe. 

The satellite is also the very first Finnish commercial satellite. The ICEYE-X1 demonstration mission 
was ended in 2018 with very successful results in demonstrating the capabilities of the novel SAR sensor 
and captured more than 600 unique acquisitions from a variety of test sites. SAR satellite images are 
particularly useful for maritime applications for monitoring port and sea traffic, seafaring in icy waters 
and early detection of oil spills. 

SAR technology on board is designed to provide almost real-time imagery at any time also at night and 
through cloud cover. 

ICEYE is in particular of high interest in forecasting and detecting Iceberg movements and in ensuring 
the security of offshore oil and gas operations in icy waters. 

4.2.2.2  France / India 

The overall objectives of the joint French-Indian programme SARAL (Satellite with Argos and ALtiKa) 
are to realize precise, repetitive global measurements of sea surface height, significant wave heights 
and  wind  speed  for  the  development  of  operational  oceanography  and  developing  forecasting 
capabilities.  

The SARAL mission, launched on 25 February 2013, is very relevant for monitoring the Arctic having a 
capacity of covering polar areas up to ±81.5° geographical latitude.  

The instruments on board SARAL are AltiKa, the altimeter, and an Advanced Data collection System 
called  Argos-3.  The  third-generation  receiver  of  the  Argos  system  allows  locating  and  collecting 
environmental data from any platform equipped with an Argos transmitter, from drifting buoys to turtles 
or birds. 

50 

 
 
4.2.2.3  France / China 

CFOSAT (China-France Oceanography SATellite) allows studying ocean surface winds and waves. The 
data allow getting more reliable sea-state forecasts and are used for ocean-atmosphere interactions. It 
is  a  joint  French-China programme: CNSA  being  responsible  of  the  platform,  the  launch  and  the 
scatterometer; CNES being in charge of the altimeter. CFOSAT carries two Ku radar payloads: a wave 
scatterometer  and  a  wind  scatterometer.  CFOSAT  has  several  assets  for  ice  studies:  the  polar  orbit 
allows  having  a  daily  revisit  of  polar  areas  (3  days  for  global  coverage),  a  better  characterization  of 
ice/snow  properties.  It  can  also  be  used  in  synergy  with  other  altimeters  (Sentinel-3,  Cryosat-2  and 
AltiKa). One of its original features is the possibility to assess the waves’ impact on the ice sheet. 

4.2.2.4  United Kingdom 

NovaSAR-S is a satellite UK programme involving the UK Space agency and SSTL (Surrey Satellite 
Technology)  to  demonstrate  SAR  technology  on  small  platforms.  It  has  been  designed  for  low  cost 
programmes.  It  embarks  a  S-band  Synthetic  Aperture  Radar  (S-SAR),  a  high-resolution  all-weather 
imagery mission whose primary objectives are to monitor  glaciers, sea ice cover and detect oil spills. 
NovaSAR is equipped with a wide swath (> 400 km) maritime mode for ship detection across oceans. 
ScanSAR modes  will detect oil spill  in coastal  areas  and open ocean.  Using a  constellation of three 
satellites can provide maritime surveillance of the same area every few hours.  

4.2.2.5  Norway  

The Norwegian company KSAT (Kongsberg Satellite Services) and Space Norway are  considering to 
deploy the MicroSAR system which is tailored for maritime monitoring and optimized for ship detection 
(4 m resolution with an approximate 200 km swath). The system includes a C-band radar transmitter 
and an on-board AIS receiver. A constellation of 10 satellites is foreseen allowing an approximate 3 hour 
average revisit frequency. 

4.2.3  EUMETSAT satellite missions and facilities 

The  EUMETSAT  Polar  System  (EPS)  is  the  Europe’s  first  series  of  polar-orbiting  meteorological 
satellites. It is composed of three Metop satellites (Metop-A, B and C). 

The  payload  instruments  on  board  the  Metops  are  used  for  imagery  (visible,  infrared),  sounding 
(infrared, microwave, Ultra Violet sensors and atmospheric sounder  with the GNSS radio occultation 
technique) and radar instruments. The primary objective of the mission is to support Numerical Weather 
Prediction  (NWP)  including  nowcasting  at  high  latitudes  which  is  not  covered  by  the  geostationary 
Meteosat programme. The dissemination of the products is done through EUMETCast. Metop C, the 
last  flight  unit  that  is  operational  since  2018  contributes  to  operational  meteorology  and  brings  a 
substantial contribution to ocean and ice monitoring, climate monitoring and atmospheric chemistry. 

EUMETSAT is managing eight Satellite Application Facilities. All facilities are relevant for the Arctic and 
summarised in Figure 19. Those SAF provide users with operational data and software products. Each 
SAF is dedicated to specific user community and application area. 

51 

 
 
Figure 19: Summary of the different Eumetsat SAF  

One of the facilities which is of particular interest for the Arctic region is the OSI (Ocean and Sea Ice) 
SAF that provide sea ice, SST, wind and radiative flux products.  

Products  related  to  key  parameters  of  ocean-atmosphere  interface  are  provided  in  near  real  time. 
Climatological data records are also provided. 

4.2.4 

International Missions 

4.2.4.1  Canada 

RADARSAT  Constellation  Mission  (RCM)  is  the  evolution  of  the  RADARSAT  program  with  the 
objectives to ensure data continuity and respond to the increasing needs of the Government of Canada 
for  SAR  data  to  support  operations  in  the  areas  of  maritime  surveillance,  disaster  management  and 
ecosystem monitoring.  

RCM is composed of 3 identical satellites. Each of them has two payloads, a C-Band SAR (5.405 GHz) 
and a receiver for Automatic Identification System (AIS) transmission from vessels. The use of AIS in 
conjunction  with the radar  data  will allow improved  detection and tracking of vessels of interest. The 
very innovative feature of RCM is brought by the circular Compact Polarisation (transmit circular and 
receive  dual  linear  Horizontal  and  Vertical  ones)  that  will  allow  better  detection,  measurement,  and 
discrimination of surface features and characteristics. 

RCM  is  a  government-owned  mission.  About  the  RCM  SAR  Data  policy  there  is  neither  commercial 
tasking  nor  commercial  data  distribution.  Registration  is  required  to  access  the  data.  There  will  be 
acquisition priority  according to  the emergency and  urgent monitoring needs.  RCM  was successfully 
launched on 12Th June 2019. 

52 

 
 
 
The  Copernicus  Programme  is  currently  in  discussions  with  the  Canadian  Space  Agency  trying  to 
establish  an  agreement  on  the  coordination  of  observation  plans  for  RCM  and  Sentinel-1.  This  will 
ensure a better global coverage including the Polar regions.  

4.2.4.2  United States of America 

ICESat-2 is the second flight unit of the ICESat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) programme. 
The main objective of the mission is to conduct polar ice observation and ice sheet mass balance with 
the capability to derive sea ice thickness. The NASA mission ensures a global coverage in 183 days 
(the orbit repeat cycle) leaving cross–track 2.5 km gaps at 80° latitude. The four objectives of the mission 
are  to  measure  and  monitor  the  changes  in  the  mass  of  ice  sheets  and  glaciers,  investigate  the 
subsequent  effects  on  sea  level  rise,  estimate  sea  ice  thickness  and  its  changes,  and  measure 
vegetation  height  worldwide.  Another  important  dimension  brought  by  the  ICE-Sat-2  mission  is  the 
possibility to study the location and extent of forests thanks to the ATLAS sensor (Advance Topographic 
Laser  Altimeter  System).  The  ICESAT-2 mission  is  also  beneficial  for  the  hydrological  community  to 
provide terrestrial snow thickness and permafrost monitoring. 

The  main  objectives  of  MODIS,  the  Moderate  Resolution  Imaging  spectro-radiometer  on  board  both 
Terra and Aqua satellites, are to improve our understanding of global dynamics and processes occurring 
on the land, in the oceans and in the lower atmosphere. 

The provision of surface temperature for the Arctic is done through the CGLDS (Copernicus Global Land 
Data  System).  The  products  related  to  snow  cover  and  sea  ice  data  sets  derived  from  MODIS 
observations are provided by the NSIDC archives. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3  Other EO Capabilities 

An overview of the main relevant platforms used for Arctic EO data is summarized. 

4.3.1  Services and Platforms 

4.3.1.1  Norway infrastructure 

The  Norwegian  KSAT  (Kongsberg  Satellite 
Services) company provides near-real time EO 
services for the detection and monitoring of oil 
spills, vessels and sea ice. The satellite-based 
oil and vessel detection services are provided 
to  EMSA  CSN  (European  Maritime  Safety 
Agency Clean Sea Net) for a large area in the 
Arctic  region  (zones  6  and  7),  as  well  as  in 
northern Europe (zones 5, 8 and 9) depicted in 
Figure 20. 

Norway’s  foreseen  MicroSAR  system  was 
mentioned before in section 4.2.2.5.  

Figure 20: KSAT delivers oil and vessel detection services 
for tasking areas 5,6,7,8 and 9. 

4.3.1.2  Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing Systems (SIOS) 

SIOS20 is the northernmost Copernicus Relay and provides remote sensing service to the members. 
SIOS is a consortium of 25 institutes from 10 nations with infrastructures in and around Svalbard. 

The  planned  distributed  installations  (instruments/sensors/facility)  within  the  atmosphere,  terrestrial, 
ocean and common modules of the InfraNor project can be found at https://sios-svalbard.org/InfraNor. 
The conceptual map of SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard is depicted in Figure 21. 

20 The observation facility database of SIOS can be found on https://sios-svalbard.org/sios-ri-catalogue 
different sources of data are stored (e.g. land base station, sea station, aircraft, satellites and underwater 
platform). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
 
Figure 21: SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard 

4.3.1.3  Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS) 

The Arctic ROOS provides and maintains operational monitoring and forecasting of ocean circulation, 
water masses, ocean surface conditions, sea ice and biological/chemical constituents. The Arctic ROOS 
counts a group of 16 member institutions from nine European countries using ocean observation and 
modelling systems from the Arctic Ocean. A summary of the satellite observations and partners involved 
is given in Table 8.   

Table  8:  Summary  of  the  satellite  observations  provided  by  the  Arctic  ROOS  and  the  partners  involved  in  the 
products delivery. 

List of observations 

Partners involved 

Ice concentration (from SSMI, AMSR2) 

Ice  area  and  extent,  global  ice  drift  (merged  ASCAT  and 
SSM/I) 

Daily observations of Arctic ice concentration maps 

Regional ice charts 

NERSC,  University  of  Bremen,  Institute  of 
Ifremer, 
Environmental 
Norwegian  Meteorological 
Institute,  DMI, 
Eumetsat-OSI SAF 

Physics 

(IUP), 

4.3.1.4  TEP Polar  

The  Polar  Thematic  Exploitation  Platform  has  been  developed  by  the  organisation  Polar  View  Earth 
Observation Limited (Polar View) for the European Space Agency.  

The concept of the TEP aims at providing a working environment where users can access algorithms 
and data remotely. The platform allows avoiding the need to download and store large volumes of data, 
thereby encouraging the exploitation of EO data. 

55 

 
 
 
 
For the Arctic region, the need of having such platform is even more justified to be able to better monitor 
and predict the rapid environmental changes. This digital platform service is under development. 

4.3.1.5  Polar View Community Ice service  

The Copernicus products are also provided through the Polar View organization. Polar View is an online 
downstream service useful to the general public in Greenland and also to professionals, for visualizing 
Copernicus ice-related data in Polar Regions (Satellite observation and Forecast Models). The Polar 
View  consortium  includes  government  agencies,  research  institutes,  system  developers,  service 
providers and end users from 17 countries. Polar View uses the Copernicus Marine Service Satellite 
sea-ice products and ocean currents from the Arctic Ocean forecast model and provides a very simple 
user interface. Polar View helps for example shipping companies with the ship routing in ice covered 
areas. The proposed services integrate monitoring and forecasting services for sea ice, ice edge, snow 
monitoring, iceberg monitoring, lake ice and glacier services. 

The Polar View Community Service combines technology, including EO data, with local knowledge to 
create ice information useful for northern communities. The applications aim to mitigate operation risks. 
In particular, key features allow providing up-to-date iceberg locations, instant coverage of large areas, 
up to daily generation of iceberg observations.  

The  service  is  implemented  in  collaboration  with  C-CORE  (www.c-core.ca)  and  the  Danish 
Meteorological  Institute  (www.dmi.dk),  and  with  the  support  of  the  Copernicus  Marine  Environment 
Monitoring Service.  

Table 9: Summary of the main data, services and products provided in near real time by C-Core for Greenland. 

Input data 

Services 

Products 

Multi-mission satellite imagery 

Pre-season planning 

Iceberg location  

Ship  automatic 
system (AIS) data 

Forecasts 

identification 

Risk analysis  

Ship vs iceberg discrimination 

Planning, 
conflicting of image acquisitions 

coordination, 

de-

Ice front location 

Ice type classification 

Ice cover change 

The platform is accessible at https://polarview.looknorthservices.com/ and gathers Sentinel-1, Sentinel-
2 data and Modis (250 m) data.  

The  Polar  View  Community  Ice  service  has  been  developed  working  closely  with  the  Qaanaaq 
community (North Greenland). The service is being extended to all communities in Greenland.  

4.3.1.6  EMODnet 

The  main  purpose  of  the  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)  is  to  unlock 
fragmented  and  hidden  marine  data  resources  and  to  make  these  available  to  individuals  and 
organisations (both public and private), and to facilitate investment in sustainable coastal and offshore 
activities through improved access to quality-assured, standardised and harmonised marine data which 
are interoperable and free of restrictions on use. 

EMODnet  is  a  consortium  of  organisations  assembling  European  marine  data,  data  products  and 
metadata  from  diverse  sources  in  a  uniform  way.  It  is  a  long-term  marine  data  initiative  from  the 
European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) underpinning 
its Marine Knowledge 2020 strategy.  

56 

 
 
 
 
EMODnet  provides  access  to  European  marine  data  across  seven  discipline-based  themes: 
Bathymetry, Geology, Seabed habitats, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Human activities. For each of 
these themes, EMODnet has created a gateway to a range of data archives managed by local, national, 
regional and international organisations. Through these gateways, users have access to standardized 
observations, data quality indicators and processed data products, such as basin-scale maps. These 
data  products  are  free  to  access  and  use.  General  access  is  at  http://www.emodnet.eu/.  There  is  a 
dedicated Arctic checkpoint at http://www.emodnet.eu/arctic.  

Some of the data products made available under EMODnet are based on data gathered by satellites. 
For  example,  the  EMODnet  ship  density  maps  are  based  on  a  combination  of  satellite-received  and 
coastal-received AIS messages broadcast from ships (Figure 22). Other EMODnet data are not space-
based but can be used as auxiliary data when processing and interpreting EO data.  

Figure 22: EMODnet ship density map of the entire year 2017 covering the European Arctic. All data away from the coast 
are collected by satellite. 

4.3.1.7  Big data processing platforms 

In the recent past it was normal to download satellite images for local processing at the user. However, 
as the images have become much bigger and much more in the age of Big Data, downloading and local 
processing is becoming a bottleneck. On that account, IT platforms have been set up that offer big data 
processing, often via the cloud. These include e.g. ‘Google Earth Engine’ and ‘Earth on AWS’. In Europe, 
the  Commission  has  launched  an  initiative  to  set  up  commercially-run  ‘Data  and  Information  Access 
Services’  (DIAS),  in  particular  to  stimulate  the  uptake  of  Copernicus  data.  There  are  now  5  DIASs, 
specialising  on  somewhat  different  datasets  and  applications:  Onda,  Sobloo,  Creodias,  Wekeo  and 
Mundi (https://www.copernicus.eu/en/access-data/dias).  

4.3.2  Relevant R&D Actions 

The services and platforms that are currently available for the end users have been identified and listed 
with an emphasize on the specific information existing for the Arctic space users. The inventory has also 
the scope to highlight and identify the challenges of the Big data systems. Those challenges are linked 
to the data volume, data continuity, data sharing and data quality and are key for the end users.  

To cope with these different challenges innovation, timeliness, mission synergies and uniqueness need 
to be taken into consideration. 

57 

 
 
 
4.3.2.1  ESA Projects 

Knowledge of permafrost distribution and dynamics is relevant both for operational activities (transport, 
construction)  and  for  understanding  its  interactions  with  ecosystems  and  climate  change.  The  main 
permafrost variables - permafrost extent/fraction, active layer thickness, and ground temperature profile 
- cannot be directly observed from space. However, they can be estimated based on proxies (land cover, 
subsidence & ground deformation, water storage from gravimetric studies, lake extent) or determined 
from  a  combination  of  modelling  and  satellite  data  products  of  ground  temperature,  soil  moisture, 
vegetation cover, and snow cover. 

In ESA’s DUE-GlobPermafrost project, the second approach was used to generate two basic datasets 
in a resolution of 1 km, representing the period 2000-2016: 

• 

• 

Mean annual ground temperature at the top of permafrost 

Probability of permafrost occurrence 

The  datasets  can  be  downloaded 
https://www.globpermafrost.info/cms.  

from 

links  provided  on 

the  project’s  website:  

A viewer which was specifically developed for the visualization of permafrost data from this project can 
be accessed here:  

https://maps.awi.de/awimaps/projects/public/?cu=globpermafrost_overview#home 

ESA has launched the Permafrost CCI Project, which is a component of ESA’s Climate Change Initiative 
(CCI). The objective of CCI is to produce datasets for a subset of Essential Climate Variables (ECV) as 
defined  by  the  Global  Climate  Observing  System  (GCOS),  which  includes  permafrost.  The  product 
includes  ground temperature, active  layer thickness, permafrost extent, and permafrost classification 
information.  

first 

A 
http://data.ceda.ac.uk/neodc/esacci/permafrost/data/active_layer_thickness/L4/area4/pp/v02.0/ 

available 

version 

made 

data 

the 

of 

here 

is 

: 

4.3.2.2  H2020 Projects 

EU  is  a  major  investor  in  Arctic  research,  200  M€  have  been  invested  through  Horizon  2020  (2014-
2020). Table 10 gives a summary of the different EU projects dedicated to the region while indicating 
their topic and objectives.  

Table 10: EU funded Arctic research and innovation H2020 projects  

Project name 

Themes  

EU-Polarnet 

2015-2020 

Intaros 

2016-2021 

iCupe 

2017-2020 

Interact 

2016-2020 

Arice 

Generate new knowledge about the world’s polar regions which are seen as indicators 
of our planet’s health. 

Develop an integrated Arctic Observation System (iAOS) by extending, improving and 
unifying existing systems. It seeks to help address Arctic challenges and enable better-
informed decision-making. 

Help  establish  and  maintain  long-term,  coherent  and  coordinated  polar  observations 
and  research  activities.  Its  focus  is  on  improving  the  integration  of  existing  in-situ 
observational  networks  collecting  data  on  pollutants,  including  aerosols  and  trace 
gases, as well as contaminants. It also seeks to harmonise quality control. 

This  project  aims  to  build  capacity  for  identifying,  understanding,  predicting  and 
responding to diverse environmental changes in the Arctic. It offers scientists access to 
numerous research stations, giving them the chance to work in the field in often remote 
locations. 

ARICE seeks to give polar scientists better access to ice-breakers and boost Europe’s 
capacity for marine-based research in the ice-covered Arctic Ocean. It also aims to work 

58 

 
 
2018-2021 

Applicate 

2016-2020 

Blue action 

2016-2021 

Nunataryuk 

2017-2022 

GRACE 

2016-2019 

SEDNA 

2017-2020 

ARCSAR 

2018-2023 

with the maritime industry on a programme that involves commercial ships collecting 
oceanic and atmospheric data. 

This project addresses the need for trustworthy weather and climate predictions in the 
Arctic  and  beyond.  APPLICATE’s  international  team  of  experts  are  aiming  to  make 
significant improvements to current climate and weather models and help determine the 
influence of Arctic climate change on the Northern Hemisphere. 

The aim of BLUE-ACTION is to boost the ability to describe, model and predict Arctic 
climate change and its impact on the Northern Hemisphere. It seeks to do this by, for 
example,  improving  the  uptake  of  relevant  EO  satellite  data  and  contributing  to  a 
forecasting framework. 

The main goal of NUNATARYUK is to determine the impact of thawing land, coast and 
subsea permafrost on both the global climate and humans in the Arctic, and to develop 
targeted and co-designed adaptation and mitigation strategies. 

The  GRACE  project  is  focusing  on  developing,  comparing  and  evaluating  the 
effectiveness and environmental impact of different oil spill response methods in a cold 
climate. It is also developing a system for the real-time observation of underwater oil 
spills and a strategic tool for choosing oil spill response methods. 

This  project  is  developing  an  innovative  and  integrated  risk-based  approach  to  safe 
Arctic navigation, ship design and operation to enable European maritime interests to 
fully  embrace  the  Arctic’s  significant  and  growing  shipping  opportunities  while 
safeguarding its natural environment. 

The ARCSAR project will monitor research and innovation projects and recommend the 
uptake and the industrialization of results, express common requirements as regards 
innovations that could fill in capability and other gaps and improve their performance in 
the future, and indicate priorities as regards common capabilities, or interfaces among 
capabilities,  requiring  more  standardization.  The  project  will  look  into  the  need  for 
enhanced measures to respond to composite challenges including surveillance of and 
mobilization in case of threat situations, and emergency response capability related to 
search  and  rescue  (SAR),  environmental  protection,  firefighting,  and  actions  against 
terror or other forms of destructive action. 

KEPLER 

2019-2021 

KEPLER is a multi-partner initiative, built around the operational European Ice Services 
and Copernicus information providers, to prepare a roadmap for Copernicus to deliver 
an improved European capacity for monitoring and forecasting the Polar Regions. 

Another relevant H2020 project to highlight in  the context of this study is the Operational Network of 
Individual Observation Nodes (ONION).  It consists in identifying and characterising solutions to meet 
needs in the European EO market using Fractionated and Federated Satellite Systems (FFSS).  

This innovative ONION concept aims at ensuring competitive imaging from Space, supplementing the 
current European EO infrastructures to serve emerging needs.  

4.4  Future missions 

4.4.1  Copernicus High Priority Candidate and Expansion Missions   

Six  high-priority  candidate  missions  (HPCMs)  are  being  proposed  to  address  EU  policy  and  gaps  in 
Copernicus user needs and to expand the current capabilities of the Copernicus space component. The 
six HPCMs (CHIME, CIMR, CO2M, CRISTAL, LSTM and ROSE-L) will all contribute to address specific 
high-priority  requirements  from  key  Arctic  user  communities,  and  respond  to  the  recommendations 
outlined in two reports from the group of European Polar Experts (Duchossois et al. 2018). These reports 
provided  a  detailed  review  and  prioritization  of  users’  needs  for  Arctic  observations,  an  analysis  of 
observation  gaps,  and  recommendations  for  Copernicus  Sentinel  expansion  missions  to  close  these 
gaps, and to ensure continuity.  

59 

 
 
4.4.1.1  CHIME (Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission):  

The CHIME mission will complement the conventional passive optical spectral remote sensing missions 
such  as  Sentinel-2.  It  will  provide  routine  hyperspectral  observations  for  the  management  of  natural 
resources.  This  includes  biodiversity  on  land,  forestry,  inland  and  coastal  waters,  environmental 
degradation and hazards, hydrology and cryosphere (ESA 2019). 

The  main  benefits  expected  from  the  mission  are  a  higher  temporal  resolution  to  monitor  snow 
properties, detailed knowledge of snow albedo, accurate snow covered area and snow water equivalent. 

CHIME  would  bring  key  observation  to  assess  environmental  degradation  and  hazards,  permafrost 
change, water availability and serve as early warning capacity for avalanche risk for the Arctic region.  

4.4.1.2  CIMR (Copernicus Imaging Microwave Radiometer):  

The  CIMR  mission  (Donlon  2019)  is  foreseen  to  carry  a  multi-frequency  microwave  radiometer  to 
provide  observations  of  sea-surface  temperature,  sea-ice  concentration  and  sea-surface  salinity.  It 
would  also  observe  a  wide  range  of  other  sea-ice  parameters,  terrestrial  snow  cover  and  water 
equivalent,  wind  speed  over  oceans,  soil  moisture,  land  surface  temperature,  cloud  liquid  water  and 
precipitation over oceans, and terrestrial surface water extent. CIMR will provide 95% global all weather 
coverage  every  day  with  one  satellite  and  complete  (no  hole-at-the-pole)  sub-daily  coverage  (~5-6 
hours) of the Polar Regions. CIMR will operate in synergy with the EUMETSAT MetOp-SG(B) mission 
so  that  over  the  polar  regions  (>60N  and  60S)  collocated  and  contemporaneous  measurements 
between CIMR and MetOp Microwave Imager and SCA scatterometer measurements will be available 
within 10 min. 

Figure 23: Simulated number of revisits in 24 hours obtained with the CIMR mission in the Arctic. (www.cimr.eu) 

4.4.1.3  CO2M (Copernicus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Monitoring):  

The  European  Union’s  Copernicus  programme  has  launched  an  initiative  to  support  the  stocktaking 
exercise  with  a  new  observation-based  service  to  monitor  CO2  emissions  resulting  from  human 
activities. The analysis of these measurements will allow EU member states and other countries to track 

60 

 
 
 
progress  in  achieving  the  Paris  Agreement  goals.  The  challenge  of  developing  a  CO2  emissions 
monitoring  support  capacity  lies  in  a  comprehensive  observing  system  combining  space-borne 
observations and ground based monitoring networks. The observing system must allow us to separate 
the impact of anthropogenic emissions from the effect of the complex natural carbon cycle, both affecting 
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 

4.4.1.4  CRISTAL (Copernicus polaR Ice and Snow Topography Altimeter): 

CRISTAL is foreseen to carry a multi-frequency radar altimeter and microwave radiometer to measure 
and  monitor  sea-ice  thickness  and  overlying  snow  depth  (Davidson,  Μ.,  et  al.  2019).  It  would  also 
measure and monitor changes in the height of ice sheets and glaciers around the world. Measurements 
of sea-ice thickness would support maritime operations in polar oceans and, in the longer term, would 
help in the planning of activities in the Polar Regions. Since inter-annual sea-ice variability is sensitive 
to  climate  change,  the  mission  would  contribute  to  a  better  understand  of  climate  processes.    This 
mission would also contribute to the observation of sea level anomaly, as well as land  elevation and 
snow structure changes in regions underlain by permafrost. 

4.4.1.5  LSTM (Copernicus Land Surface Temperature Monitoring):  

The  LSTM  mission  would  carry  a  high  spatial-temporal  resolution  thermal  infrared  sensor  to  provide 
observations  of  Land-Surface  Temperature  (LST).  Surface  temperature  is  a  crucial  parameter  for 
permafrost  monitoring.  The  LSTM  will  provide  important  capacities  for  snow,  glacier  and  permafrost 
monitoring (Koetz et al. 2019).  

The LSTM mission will provide high resolution monitoring of LST variation of the season and for long-
term  trends.  In  particular  it  will  allow  getting  a  dynamic  range  of  LST  measurements  required  by 
permafrost and frost  applications (ranging from 248K  to 280K). Thermal Infrared data (TIR) are  also 
used  for  studies  related  to  glacier  lakes  or  Arctic  (and  Subarctic)  lakes.  In  particular,  lake  surface 
temperature  and  thermal  stratification  are  important  parameters  in  the  analysis  of  changes  occurred 
over these ecosystems.   

4.4.1.6  ROSE-L (L-band synthetic aperture Radar Observing System for Europe):  

ROSE-L  is  foreseen  to  carry  an  L-band  SAR.  Since  the  longer  L-band  signal  can  penetrate  through 
many  natural  materials  such  as  vegetation,  dry  snow  and  ice,  the  mission  would  provide  additional 
information that cannot be gathered by the Copernicus Sentinel-1 C-band radar mission (Davidson, Μ., 
et al. 2019). It would be used in support of forest management, to monitor ground movement, landslides 
and soil moisture, and to discriminate crop types for precision farming and food security. In addition, the 
mission would contribute to the monitoring of polar ice sheets and ice caps, sea-ice extent in the polar 
region, and of seasonal snow. Potential areas of application are agriculture, forestry, maritime traffic, oil 
spills, fisheries, and iceberg detection. 

Figure 24: L-band data shows an increased coverage and availability of ground motion information as compared to C-
band data (here for an area in Nepal around 2006) (from (Kern 2019)) 

61 

 
 
4.4.2  Commercial missions 

From  2020,  Airbus  will  fly  a  new  optical  constellation  with  four  identical  30  cm  resolution  satellites 
providing EO based satellites. The constellation will allow a rapid coverage at regional scale. It will allow 
a revisit daily capacity for most latitudes including Arctic. 

4.4.3  Future Member States Missions 

The French-German Methane Remote Sensing LIDAR Mission (MERLIN) is designed to observe the 
greenhouse gas methane with an active LIDAR instrument from an altitude of about 500 km. The main 
goals are to produce maps of methane concentration and to identify sources and sinks of methane. The 
launch date is planned for 2024, with a mission lifetime of three years. Using an active instrument, this 
mission will be able to provide information on methane day and night, including in the polar winter, and 
also under cloudy conditions. It is co-designed by CNES and DLR. 

The Italian Space Agency will launch the PRISMA future mission that will include an EO system with 
innovative,  electro-optical  instrumentation  that  combines  a  hyperspectral  sensor  with  a  medium-
resolution  panchromatic  camera.  The  applications  the  more  relevant  for  the  Arctic  region  will  be  for 
inland  and  coastal  waters,  climate  change  and  environmental  research,  and  natural  resources 
exploration and mining. 

COSMO-SkyMed  Second  generation  (CSM-SG)  (Constellation  of  Small  Satellites  for  Mediterranean 
basin Observation) is a series of 2 satellites for SAR observation. The Italian Space Agency (ASI) is 
responsible of the development and operations. Launch was in December 2019. 

EnMAP  is  a  German  hyperspectral  satellite  mission  that  aims  at  monitoring  and  characterising  the 
Earth’s environment on a global scale. EnMAP serves to measure and model key dynamic processes 
of the Earth’s ecosystems by extracting geochemical, biochemical and biophysical parameters, which 
provide  information  on  the  status  and  evolution  of  various  terrestrial  and  aquatic  ecosystems.  The 
discrimination  of  the  different  vegetation  types  and  biophysical  parameters  is  of  great  interest  for 
tundra/permafrost research even if permafrost cannot be directly observed by optical remote sensing. 
EnMap launch is planned in 2020 and will contribute to provide a synergistic data collection bringing fine 
spectral and spatial resolution with the broader swath coverage provided by other existing producs from 
MODIS or Sentinel 3 dataset. 

4.4.4  Future EUMETSAT satellites 

EPS-SG  is  EUMETSAT's next  generation  of  polar-orbiting  satellites,  following  on  from  EUMETSAT 
Polar System programme (Metop). It will secure the continuation of meteorological observations from 
the polar orbit in the 2022-2043 timeframe. In particular, the nowcasting (prediction in near-real time) 
will be available at high latitudes. The key features of the mission that are relevant for the Arctic include 
operational  oceanography  through  the  delivery  of  ocean  surface  wind  motion  vectors,  sea  surface 
temperature and sea ice cover. 

The EPS-SG mission will be composed of two series of three spacecraft each, Metop-SG A (launch in 
2022)  and  Metop-SG  B  (launch  in  2023).  Both  satellite  types  will  be  equipped  with  GNSS  radio-
occultation payloads (see section  8 on synergies) that will allow providing detailed information on the 
atmosphere and for climate monitoring. 

4.4.5 

International Missions 

The JPSS Joint Polar Satellite System will provide the global environmental data that are assimilated in 
the Numerical Weather Forecast systems and used for weather prediction applications. The data and 
imagery provided by JPSS will increase timeliness and accuracy of public warnings and forecasts of 
climate and weather events. Data from the JPSS system shall be made freely available, by the United 
States Government, to domestic and international users, in support of U.S. commitments for the Global 
Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). 

EarthCARE (Earth Cloud Aerosol and Radiation Explorer) is an ESA Earth Explorer mission planned to 
be  launched  in  the  early  2020.  The  European/Japanese  satellite  will  use  two  large  instruments:  an 
atmospheric Lidar (ATLID) and a Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) and measure vertical velocities of cloud 
particles  and  information  on  thick  clouds.  EarthCare’s  orbit  is  near-polar  and  will  provide  a  global 

62 

 
coverage. Regarding the data processing, the satellite data will be downlinked to a high-latitude ground 
station  and  the  instrument  data  will  be  processed  up  to  Level  1  by  ESA  for  the  lidar,  imager  and 
radiometer, and by JAXA for the radar.  

The future SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) is a joint mission between NASA and CNES 
including contributions from the Canadian Space Agency and the United Kingdom Space Agency. The 
objectives of the mission are to monitor the terrestrial surface waters and the ocean surface topography. 
The revisit time will be 11 days over most of the globe.  

Summary of Earth Observation Capability in the Arctic 

In this section, a detailed inventory of current and future available EO capability for the Arctic 
region has been presented starting with the Copernicus structure, the key Sentinels satellite 
missions and the other contributing missions from the Copernicus European EO programme. 
After listing the different Copernicus services and their relevance to cope with the Arctic 
challenges, other EO satellite missions: European (ESA Earth Explorer, other European and 
EUMETSAT satellite missions) and International ones are given.  

Additional EO capabilities such as services and platforms have been presented. This includes 
Norway infrastructure, the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing Systems (SIOS), the 
Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS), and the Polar view Community services that 
produce ice information in particular for northern communities.  

Big data platforms are available to improve the processing of large amount of data either in the 
framework of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) for accessing 
European marine data or using commercially-run ‘Data and Information Access Services’ 
(DIAS) for facilitating the uptake of Copernicus data. 

Relevant R&D actions are summarized listing the more relevant ESA projects and H2020 
projects for the Arctic region. To conclude the section an update on the future satellite 
missions expected within a 10 years’ timeframe is given. This concerns commercial missions, 

63 

 
 
Copernicus High Priority Candidate and Expansion Missions, future Member States missions 
and EUMETSAT satellites plus International missions. 

Timeline of the Earth observation missions with a relevant benefit for the Arctic region. 

64 

 
5 

Inventory of current and future capabilities in Satellite navigation  

In  this  section,  European  GNSS  (EGNSS)  services  and  products  relevant  for  the  Arctic  region  are 
presented. GNSS-based navigation relies on satellites broadcasting ranging signals. Satellites visibility 
is  usually  constrained  by  the  latitude  of  the  observer;  although  in  a  very  different  way  Galileo  and 
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) are affected by the constraints at high 
latitude. From EGNOS perspective, satellite visibility is limited and the more active ionosphere could 
limit the high-accuracy positioning, whereas for Galileo the main limitations are relative to the maximum 
elevation of the satellites. In addition, the infrastructure to necessary to download assistance data for 
GNSS, map updates, and traffic information has gaps in uninhabited areas. In the Arctic, positioning 
and navigation systems face a number of limitations that cannot be easily overcome. This includes the 
ionospheric  effect  which  introduces  severe  degradation  for  single  frequency  users;  such  effects  are 
mitigated  by  the  adoption  of  dual  frequency  receivers  (European  Commission  2016b).  This  type  of 
devices  is  able  to  remove  the  first  term  of  the  ionospheric  error  exploiting  signals  on  two  different 
frequencies  (Hegarty  and  Kaplan  2006).  In  addition  to  the  ionospheric  error,  in  the  Arctic  region  an 
increased electron precipitation can be observed which causes higher ionospheric variability reducing 
performance  of  the  ionospheric  model.  Satellite  communications  and  Satellite  Based  Augmentation 
Systems (SBAS) are also significantly affected by reduced performance in the Arctic, because these 
services are based on geostationary satellites which are visible at very low elevation angles; moreover, 
in the most Northern parts of the area the reception of signals from geostationary satellites is not possible 
at all. However, EGNOS Safety of Life (SoL) V2.4.2 will allow providing a service area extension and 
new SoL commitment maps extended to 72°N (European GNSS Agency 2016).  Galileo services are 
presented in 5.2 then the products and services of EGNOS are described in Section 5.3. 

5.1  Galileo 

Galileo is the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), able to provide different services 
in all-weather condition with a global coverage. In December 2016, Galileo officially moved from testing 
phase  to  the  Initial  service  phase.  The  system  is  composed  by  of  a  space  segment  and  a  control 
segment. 

The  key  elements  and  the  current  status  of  the  segments  that  are  relevant  for  the  Arctic  region  are 
reported in the following sections. Galileo provides several services which are described in the following 
sections. 

The nominal space segment of Galileo  is composed  of 24 plus 3 spares Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) 
satellites placed on 3 orbital planes. The ascending nodes of the orbital planes are separated by 120o 
and  inclined  of  56o  with  respect  to  the  celestial  Equator.  The  constellation  already  covers  the  Arctic 
region; in this region the horizontal geometrical conditions are enhanced with respect to middle latitude 
regions.  Galileo  satellite  tracks  are  shown  in  Figure  25,  the  satellites  geometry  for  users  located  at 
different latitudes from 55o to 90o are considered. The satellites positions have been computed using 
Galileo broadcast ephemerides of the 13th May 2019, the satellite positions have been computed for 24 
hours. Figure 25 shows the improvements in the  horizontal geometry in the Arctic region:  at  latitude 
higher than 60o North a user has satellites also in the upper part of the plot with an enhanced horizontal 
geometry.  On  the  other  hand  when  a  user  moves  toward  north,  the  satellites  are  visible  with  lowest 
elevation, this effect reduces the vertical geometry. The maximum satellite elevation angle as a function 
of the user latitude is shown in Figure 26, where GPS, Galileo and GLONASS satellites are considered.  

65 

 
Figure 25: Galileo satellites geometry as a function of the user latitude. 

Figure 26: Maximum satellite elevation as a function of the user latitude. Galileo, GPS and GLONASS satellites are used. 

The results shown in Figure 26 are obtained using Two Line Element (TLE) ephemerides, the current 
status (August 2019) of the three constellation is considered. From the figure, it can be noted that the 
maximum satellite elevation is 90 degrees up to user latitude equal to the inclination of the orbital plane. 
The three lines (blue Galileo, red GPS and green GLONASS) are flat in the first part of the graph, then 
at 55 degrees (in correspondence of the GPS orbital plane inclination) the red line starts decreasing. A 
similar behaviour can be observed for the other two lines: the blue line starts decreasing at 56 degrees 
in correspondence of the Galileo orbital plane inclination; finally, the green line starts decreasing only at 
some 65 degrees (GLONASS orbital plane inclination 64.8 degrees).  

66 

 
 
 
 
5.2  Galileo Services 

Since December 2016, following the initial service declaration, Galileo started to deliver the following 
three types of service free of charge: Galileo Open Service (European Union 2016),  Galileo Search and 
Rescue (European Commission 2016d) and Emergency Warning Service (EC 2016). A description of 
the services is provided in the following sections. 

5.2.1  Open Service (OS) 

Galileo  OS  has  been  designed  for  non-safety  critical  purposes.  The  service  allows  positioning, 
navigation and timing synchronization worldwide in any weather condition, it is freely available for any 
user equipped with a Galileo enabled receiver  (European GNSS Agency 2016). Galileo OS provides 
ranging signals and data broadcast by the Galileo constellation. The OS exploits the signal transmitted 
on two of the three frequencies used by the Galileo satellites. The frequencies are E1 and E5. Galileo 
OS exploits two different navigation messages: the F/NAV and the I/NAV. The F/NAV is broadcast on 
E5a while the I/NAV is broadcast on both E1-OS and E5b. 

F/NAV and I/NAV messages contain parameters and information allowing Galileo users to access the 
services.  

Galileo  OS  is  already  globally  available.  In  order  to  show  the  contribution  of  the  Galileo  OS  to  the 
navigation and positioning in the Arctic region, the position accuracy that a dual frequency Galileo user 
may expect considering only errors originating from and/or controlled by the Galileo system (local effects 
and atmospheric effects are not considered) is shown on the maps in Figure 27 and Figure 28. Also in 
this case, the values obtained for the Arctic region are similar to that obtained in middle latitude regions. 

Figure  27  depicts  the  PDOP  –  Position  of  Dilution  Of  Precision  that  can  be  seen  as  3D  positioning 
accuracy  and  HDOP  –  Horizontal  of  DOP  (monthly  average)  with  values  comprised  respectively 
between  1.85  and  2.2  and  0.9  and  1.1.  These  numbers  represent  the  factor  with  which  a  raw  data 
measurement error is amplified into a final position error.   

Figure 27: Position (3D) dilution of precision and horizontal (2D) dilution of precision are shown over the Arctic region. 

The  horizontal  positioning  error  (22  to  34  cm)  and  vertical  positioning  error  (35  to  44cm)  with  a  95th 
percentile are shown in Figure 28. 

67 

 
 
 
Figure 28: 2D positioning errors <95%> are shown: horizontal (left) and vertical positioning error (right) considering a 
dual frequency user and PDOP lower than 6. Single point positioning considering Signal in Space (SiS) errors only has 
been used. 

A more detailed analysis on the Galileo Open service has been performed and can be found in Annex 
1 where the mean number of Galileo visible satellites as a function of the user location and positioning 
availability considering a PDOP lower than 5 are shown (respectively in Figure 69 and Figure 70). 

5.2.2  Search and Rescue (SaR) 

Galileo Search-and-Rescue (SaR) service is one of the three services launched in December 2016 with 
the Initial Services declaration (European Commission 2016d). This service supports Cospas-Sarsat, 
which  is  the  international  humanitarian  system  for  worldwide  Search-and-Rescue  operations 
established in 1982. The infrastructure on which the service is based is described in Annex 2. 

Figure 29 shows how internationally the Arctic region is divided into areas of national SaR responsibility. 

68 

  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 29: Search and Rescue areas in the Arctic Region. 

In this framework, Galileo brings a net benefit in reducing significantly the detection time. Search and 
Rescue radius area size is typically reduced from 8 km to 2 km and a reduced time to locate the distress 
signals (4 minutes instead of four hours in the past).  

Figure 30 shows the ground infrastructure and the coverage area of the SaR Galileo service. The area 
covered by the SaR/Galileo is the area enclosed in the blue line which is  referred to as  SaR Galileo 
Coverage (SGC), while the search and rescue areas under the responsibilities of European territories 
are the area within the red line. The SGC is defined by the following coordinates: 

SGC1 85:00° North, 41:20° East; 

SGC2 29:18° North, 37:07° East; 

SGC3 05:00° North, 38:00° West; 

SGC4 75:76° North, 77:87° West. 

The SGC is determined by the physical performance of the Galileo SaR. Currently, the SGC includes 
also Iceland and Greenland. In addition, the Galileo SaR is available up to 85° covering part of the Arctic 
region. The SaR Galileo Service is provided to the search and rescue community under the MEOSAR 
program established by Cospas-Sarsat, complementing the existing LEOSAR and GEOSAR systems. 
The  GEOSAR  has  a  gap  in  the  coverage  of  the  high-latitude  (e.g.,  Polar  Regions),  hence  the  SaR 
service  provided  by  Galileo  can  extend  the  coverage  area  of  the  GEOSAR  system  providing  a  SaR 
service up to 85 degrees North with the current ground infrastructure.  

In addition, the GEOSAR system can receive beacons distress messages but it is not able to localize a 
beacon unless the location is encoded in the distress message. Differently from the GEOSAR system 
the LEOSAR system is able to localize a beacon, but the LEO satellites have a view of only a small part 
of the Earth at any given time, so there may be a delay in receiving the distress signal over LEOSAR. 
Currently five satellites in LEO have SaR device on board,  and the typical time to locate a beacon is 
between half an hour and two hours at mid-latitudes. Also in this case, Galileo SaR service complements 

69 

 
 
the current LEOSAR system because Galileo is able to guarantee a near real time worldwide coverage. 
Hence, Galileo SaR service offers the advantages of both LEOSAR and GEOSAR systems without their 
current limitations. 

Figure 30: SaR/Galileo European coverage area and ground facilities 

In addition, the service provides further enhancements for Cospas-Sarsat beacons thanks to a return 
link transmission. The return link broadcasts a confirmation to the user that the distress message has 
been received. The Galileo Return Link Service  was  declared  operational on January  21,  2020.  It  is 
considered a major upgrade compared to the existing system, which provides no feedback to users. 

The SaR/Galileo Return Link Service provides a means to send messages to distress beacons fitted 
with  an  active  Galileo  receiver,  or  to  Galileo  receivers  integrated  in  devices  contributing  to  the  SaR 
mission.  The  SaR/Galileo  Return  Link  Service  is  transmitted  via  the  Galileo  open  service  signals, 
broadcast  in  the  E1  band.  The  message  includes  an  acknowledgement  service  made  of  2  types  of 
acknowledgement messages: Acknowledgement Type-1: in this case the Return Link Message is sent 
autonomously by the Galileo system upon confirmation of the localization by the Cospas-Sarsat system. 
Acknowledgement Type-2: in this case the Return Link Message is sent by the Galileo system upon 

70 

 
 
 
request by an authorized third party entity. The latency between the transmissions of the Return Link 
Message  within  the Galileo Signal transmission from the Return Link Service  Provider to the Galileo 
core infrastructure is lower than 15 minutes with a probability of 99%.  

The SaR return link evolution is a new proposed SaR service and needs to be discussed and accepted 
by Cospas/Sarsat. The proposal for the evolution of the return link includes additional services such as 
remote activation/deactivation of the beacon, possibility to change the transmission parameters and a 
short messaging service. A more detailed description of the capability of the return link evolution service 
is available in Annex 2.  

5.2.3  Emergency Warning Service (EWS) 

A  Galileo-based  Emergency  Warning  Service  will  provide  a  warning  to  the  population  in  case  of 
emergency-related  events  such  as  fire,  floods,  and  storms.  The  civil  protection  authorities  from  the 
Member States will take the decision to warn the population with the Galileo EWS. Considering the vast 
number of different events that can be considered for a warning, Galileo EWS will assign a priority level 
for each warning. The main information broadcast by the EWS will be: 

-  Type of event: this information is fundamental information for both public and first responders 

to properly react in case of emergency. 

- 

Location / geographical coverage of the event: Galileo EWS will broadcast the location of the 
event over the area interested with a low latency (minutes).   

-  Time of the event. 

-  Basic guidance instructions. 

The architecture of the service is shown in Figure 31. The overall architecture includes: 

The  authority  in  charge  of  taking  the  decision  of  issuing  and  alert.  The  authority  should  send  the 
message (using a standardized format Common Altering Protocol (CAP)/XML) to the dedicated Galileo 
EWS infrastructure. 

Galileo Service Operator (GSOp) will then send the EWS message (at bit level) to the Galileo Ground 
Segment. 

Galileo ground stations will then uplink the EWS message to the Galileo satellites.  

Finally, Galileo satellites will broadcast EWS message to users equipped with a Galileo EWS compatible 
receiver in a specified area. At least two satellites have to broadcast the message over an area to ensure 
robustness to single satellite failures. 

71 

  
Figure 31: Galileo EWS architecture. (From GRALLE project). 

5.3  EGNOS inventory service 

The navigation system is composed of a variety of sensors, databases and other elements that for safety 
critical  applications  have  to  provide  the  quality  with  which  navigation  parameters  are  obtained.  This 
parameter  is  usually  identified  as  integrity,  which  is  the  measure  of  trust  that  can  be  placed  in  the 
correctness of the information supplied by a system (US Department of Defense et al. 2019). 

In several applications,  integrity information is fundamental. Moreover, integrity requirements are the 
more  stringent  requirements  for  a  navigation  system  in  safety  critical  applications.  GNSSs  provide 
integrity information to the user via the navigation message, but this may not be timely enough for some 
applications. Hence, GNSS-based navigation for safety critical applications can be adopted only if an 
augmentation system is used. Among the augmentation systems currently available the one we focus 
are  the  Satellite  Based  Augmentation  Systems  (SBAS).  These  systems  are  wide-area  differential 
augmentation  systems,  composed  of  a  space  segment  and  a  network  of  ground  stations  placed  at 
known positions to monitor the ranging signals of the satellite constellation.  

The European SBAS is EGNOS which through its SoL service disseminates integrity information related 
to  GPS  satellites.  The  elements  composing  the  EGNOS  ground  infrastructure  are  the:  monitoring 
Stations called Ranging Integrity Monitoring Stations (RIMS) for the collection and monitoring the of data 
obtained  from  GNSS  satellites;  then  the  control  centres  called  Mission  Control  Centers  (MCCs) 
configure  EGNOS  navigation  messages;  finally,  Navigation  Land  Earth  Stations  (NLESs)  send  the 
message to the transponders hosted by the geostationary satellites. These elements of the system are 
connected using  a communication network called EGNOS Wide Area  Network (EWAN). The  current 
EGNOS Space Segment includes transponders placed on board the Astra-5B (PRN 123), Astra SES-5 
(PRN 136) and (test mode only) Inmarsat 4F2 Emea (PRN 126) geostationary satellites21.  

Considering the two operational EGNOS satellites, the satellite elevation angle as a function of the user 
latitude is shown in Figure 32. From the figure, it clearly emerges that the EGNOS coverage is limited 
to latitude lower than 72 degrees North. At higher latitude the elevation angle of the satellites is below 
ten degrees.  

21 According to https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/EGNOS_Space_Segment 

72 

 
 
                                           
Figure 32: EGNOS satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude. 

EGNOS  satellites  visibility  in  the  Arctic  region  is  also  affected  by  the  orography.  The  impact  of  the 
orography  is  greater  as  the  latitude  is  increasing  (or  the  SBAS  GEO  satellite  elevation  angle  is 
decreasing) (Magdaleno et al. 2019). 

5.3.1  EGNOS Services 

Currently, EGNOS is able to provide corrections and integrity information for GPS signals over Europe, 
the following services are considered: 

EGNOS Open Service (OS): using this service a user is able to improve the positioning accuracy. The 
service broadcasts two type of corrections, slow and fast corrections. This allows the user to reduce the 
error sources affecting GPS signals. In particular, the corrections transmitted mitigate the ranging error 
sources  related  to  satellite  clocks,  satellite  position  and  ionospheric  effects.  The  EGNOS  OS  is 
accessible free-of-charge in Europe to any user equipped with an appropriate GPS/SBAS compatible 
receiver. 

Safety of Life (SoL): for safety of life application, in addition to the enhanced accuracy EGNOS provides 
integrity information. The integrity is the measure of the trust that can be placed in the correctness of 
the information provided by a navigation system. Currently, the service supports civil aviation operations 
down to Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) minima; the system has been designed to 
be compliant with the ICAO Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for SBAS. The EGNOS 
SoL Service has been available since 2 March 2011.      

5.3.1.1  EGNOS Open Service 

The service area of EGNOS OS is shown in Figure 33, the service area is enclosed in the green line. 
The coordinates of the four corners of the polygon are:  

-  72° North 40° East 

-  72° North 40° West 

-  20° North 40° East 

-  20° North 40° West 

73 

 
 
Figure 33: EGNOS Open Service coverage area.  

In  open  sky  condition  (without  obstacles),  the  ionosphere  is  the  main  error  source  for  GNSS 
measurements. Although the magnitude of tropospheric and the ionospheric errors can be comparable, 
the variability of Earth’s ionosphere is much larger and more difficult to model.  

In order to mitigate ionospheric errors EGNOS broadcasts ionospheric corrections, which are derived 
from  real-time  ionospheric  delay  measurements  obtained  from  a  network  of  reference  stations.  The 
observables collected by the monitoring network are used to estimate the vertical delays and associated 
integrity bounds at the ionospheric grid points (IGPs) which are located 350 km above the surface of the 
Earth as defined in Figure 34. The EGNOS model optimises both accuracy and integrity by providing 
corrections  for  specific  grid  points  in  the  European  service  area.    Grid  Ionospheric  Vertical  Delays 
(GIVDs) improve accuracy, and Grid Ionospheric Vertical Errors (GIVEs) guarantee integrity. In order to 
guarantee  spatial  and  temporal  coverage,  the  IGPs  location  has  been  chosen  according  to  spatial 
variations in the ionospheric vertical delay during periods of high solar activity and the parameters are 
updated at least every five minutes. 

In Figure 34, the IGPs geographical distribution is shown; from the figure it can be noted that the grid 
covers the whole EU territory and part of the Arctic region. In addition, IGPs are coloured according to 
the GIVE values; specifically, the colour varies between dark green (ionospheric residual error lower 
than 3.6 m) and pink (ionospheric residual error equal to 45 m), the not monitored values are grey, finally 
the points where the correction should not be used are red coloured. An example of the GIVE values 
considering the EGNOS satellite with PRN 136 is reported in Figure 34.  

74 

 
 
 
Figure 34: Ionospheric Grid Points considering EGNOS satellite PRN 136, colour code for the GIVE values. 

The  EGNOS  SoL  Service  consists  of  signals  for  timing  and  positioning  intended  for  most  transport 
applications  in  different  domains.  The  SoL  service  is  based  on  integrity  data  provided  through  the 
EGNOS  satellite  signals.  The  main  objective  of  the  EGNOS  SoL  service  is  to  support  civil  aviation 
operations. However, the SoL Service is also intended to support applications in a wide range of other 
domains such as maritime, rail and road.  

For civil aviation application, EGNOS can be used to support navigation in all phases of flight. However, 
the phase of flight with the most demanding requirements in terms of positioning accuracy and integrity 
is the approach. Different approach procedures are available:  

Precision Approaches (PA) use an instrument landing system which provides both lateral and vertical 
guidance on a stabilised continuous descent path. 

Non-Precision  Approaches  (NPA)  use  conventional  navigation  aids  such  as  Non-Directional  Beacon 
(NDB).  VHF  Omnidirectional  Range  (VOR)  and  Distance  measuring  equipment  (DME)  to  bring  the 
aircraft to a point where the runway is in view and a visual landing can be performed.  

The Approach Procedure with Vertical guidance (APV) improves safety with respect to non-precision 
approaches and provides improved access to airfields not equipped with precision approach and landing 
aids. Among the APVs, the Localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) is the highest precision 
approaches  procedure  currently  available.  These  procedures  are  based  on  GNSS  and  its 
augmentations. Hence, EGNOS is a key enabler for LPV approaches. EGNOS-based procedures are 
already implemented in airports within the Arctic region. In particular, the number of LPV and LPV 200 
foot minimum (LPV200) approaches in the Arctic region is shown in Figure 35. LPV-200 enables aircraft 
approach  procedures  that  are  operationally  equivalent  to  CATI  Instrument  Landing  System  (ILS) 
procedures.  From  the  figure,  a  growing  trend  in  the  adoption  of  EGNOS-based  procedure  clearly 
emerges. 

Currently,  Kirkenes  Airport  in  Norway  (69.72o  North  latitude)  is  the  northernmost  airport  with  active 
EGNOS-based procedures. New procedures will be set into operations in December 2020 for most of 
the airports in Norway between 70-72° N latitude (Hasvik, Berlevag, Båtsfjord, Vardo and Vadso). As a 
consequence of the increase of EGNOS coverage area to 72° North latitude announced in March 2019, 
most  airports  in  Norway  will  have  to  set  new  operation  procedures  in  December  2020.  The  growing 
number of airports using EGNOS-based procedure is also confirmed in Figure 36, where the number of 
airports  exploiting  EGNOS  as  a  function  of  the  year  is  shown.  For  the  graph  only  airports  above  60 
degrees North are considered. 

75 

 
 
Figure 35: Time evolution of the cumulative number of EGNOS-based LPV and LPV200 operations in the Arctic region. 
The dashed lines are the real number of operations while the continuous lines represent the trend.  

Omega+  is  a  nationwide  project  for  the  implementation  of  EGNOS-based  procedure  in  Finland.  The 
project  focused  on  enhanced  flight  procedures  for  General  Aviation,  Business  Aviation,  Search  and 
Rescue operations and Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) operations. During the project, 
new landing procedures for aircraft using EGNOS at specifically the procedures will be implemented at 
Pyhtää,  Sodankylä  and  Varkaus  airports.  In  addition,  new  landing  procedures  for  helicopters  using 
EGNOS  will  be  developed  at  Helsinki  University  Hospital,  Lapland  Central  Hospital  and  Kuopio 
University Hospital. The project is developed with the aims of:  

  Significantly enhance public security, emergency and health care services, especially in remote 

parts of the country 

 

Increase flight safety, decrease emissions and environmental impact 

  Fostering new business opportunities more users in Scandinavia, e.g. airlines and flight schools. 

EWA (EGNOS Working Agreement) between Isavia and ESSP signed in December 2018 which is  a 
Key enabler to formalize EGNOS SoL service in Iceland. The project allowed the first EGNOS LPV in 
Iceland at Húsavík  (BIHU) became active May 2019. Eagle Air operator is generally very pleased with 
EGNOS operations at Husavik – benefits over procedures in difficult weather. 

Figure  36:  Time  evolution  of  the  number  of  airports  in  the  Arctic  Region  with  active  or  planned  EGNOS-based 
procedures. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3.1.2  EGNOS V3 

EGNOS V3 is the new generation of EGNOS, which will replace the current version 2 in operation since 
2011.  EGNOS  V3  is  currently  under  development  and  is  foreseen  to  enter  into  service  in  2024.  V3 
system architecture  will  be modular and  upgradeable in time in order to  progressively  accommodate 
and support a very wide span of brand new GNSS services for various user communities. 

After the completion of the transition to V3, the V2 system will be decommissioned  (European GNSS 
Agency (GSA) 2019a). Two versions of EGNOS V3 are foreseen: 

-  V3.1, which is expected to ensure continuity of EGNOS augmentation of GPS L1 and improved 

ionospheric corrections; 

-  V3.2, which will provide additional SBAS service capabilities through a new SBAS channel on 
L5, including augmentation of dual frequency GPS-Galileo. This version of the service will exploit 
the  advantages  of  in-operation  Galileo  signals  as  well  as  new  frequencies  from  an  improved 
class of GPS satellites. Moreover the exploitation of the L5 lead to the improvement of the service 
robustness against errors and propagation delays caused by the ionosphere. 

5.3.1.3 

Integrity and ARAIM 

Currently, different approaches can be used to retrieve integrity information. The integrity is the measure 
of the trust that can be placed in the correctness of the information provided by a navigation system. 
GBAS involves the use of a ground infrastructure to  compute and  broadcast GNSS corrections. The 
main limitation of this approach is their coverage area; in order to fill this gap a possible solution is the 
adoption of algorithm implemented at receiver level, this type of approach is usually referred as Receiver 
Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM).  These algorithms were developed for avionic applications and 
are  based  on  GPS  only.  The  availability  of  open  signals  on  multiple  frequencies  pushed  the 
modifications of the classical RAIM techniques. In 2004, an international agreement between European 
Union (EU) and United States (US) of America was signed to foster cooperation in the field of satellite 
navigation. The agreement established a working group, the Working Group-C (WG-C) which should 
support  the  development  of  SoL  services  based  on  GPS  and  Galileo  (Working  Group  C-ARAIM 
Technical Subgroup. 2016). In this respect, a Technical Sub-Group (TSG) was established in 2010 with 
the  goal  to  investigate  and  develop  a  new  concept,  the  so  called  Advanced  Receiver  Autonomous 
Integrity  Monitoring  (ARAIM).  The  service  shall  provide  improved  integrity,  accuracy  and  continuity 
performance enabling flight phases precluded to classical RAIM.  

For integrity information ARAIM extends the coverage of the EGNOS SoL service which is provided up 
to  72  degrees  North.  ARAIM  has  a  global  coverage  including  the  polar  regions.  Three  modes  of 
operations  for  ARAIM  have  been  defined  (Subgroup  Working  Group  C-ARAIM  2015):  H-ARAIM 
(Horizontal ARAIM), which will be available from 2025, Two for vertical navigation, offline and online V-
ARAIM (Vertical ARAIM). ARAIM allow to compute the Horizontal Protection Level (HPL) and Vertical 
Protection Level (VPL). 

The global coverage provided by the ARAIM approach is shown in in Figure 37. The availability is the 
percentage  of  time  when  the  conditions  in  terms  of  protection  levels  are  met.  The  figure  shows 
availability  only  greater  than  99%.  The  worst  scenario  occurs  at  high  latitudes  whereas  for  middle 
latitude regions, the availability is greater than 99.9 %. 

77 

 
 
Figure  37:  ARAIM  Availability  as  a  function  of  the user location.  The  requirements used  to  compute  availability  are: 
Vertical Alert Limit (VAL) = 35 m, Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) = 40 m and Effective Monitoring Threshold (EMT) = 15 m. 
Scenario with 24 GPS + 24 Galileo satellites, dual-frequency iono-free combination. 

Summary of the EU Satellite navigation Capability in the Arctic 

In this section, the EGNSS services (Galileo and EGNOS) and products that are relevant for the 
Arctic region are presented. The Galileo Open Service is already available and used for the 
navigation and positioning in the Arctic region, the service allows reaching a horizontal and 
vertical positioning error of respectively about 30cm and 40cm using single point positioning 
considering Signal in Space errors only for the Arctic region with a 95th percentile, which is 
similar to the accuracy obtained in the middle latitude regions.  

One of the key features of Galileo for the Arctic people is brought by the Search and Rescue 
Service (SaR) service which allows to reduce significantly the real time detection and 
localisation of distress signals (decreasing radius area size from 8km to 2km and time 
detection from 4 minutes instead of 4 hours). In addition, Galileo has recently introduced the 
return link transmission (effective since January 2020), which allows to send promptly a 

78 

 
 
 
 
confirmation message to the user acknowledging the successful receipt of the distress 
message. 

A future service of Galileo, the Emergency warning service planned to be operational around 
2023 will provide warning to the population in case of emergency from natural hazards even for 
people located in remote areas (eg. fire, floods and storms). 

The other component of the EGNSS is the EGNOS service which is an augmentation navigation 
system allows to disseminate integrity (measure of trust associated) related to the GPS 
satellites. The EGNOS Open Service area covers part of the Arctic region reaching the 72° 
North latitude.  

Another EGNOS service of interest for the Arctic is the EGNOS SoL which provide signals for 
timing and positioning for most transport applications and in particular for civil aviation 
operations. Adoption of EGNOS-based procedure is already implemented in airports of the 
Arctic region and is growing. Its current version provides integrity and correction only for GPS 
L1, the future evolution EGNOS V3 will allow improved ionospheric corrections in the region 
and will provide integrity information for both GPS and Galileo on multi-frequency.  

For integrity information, ARAIM will extend the coverage of the EGNOS SoL service including 
the Polar Regions. 

Timeline of EU satellite navigation services under the GALILEO and EGNOS programmes with 
a relevant added-value in the Arctic. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6  Arctic SatCom challenges, needs and objectives 

Due  to  its  limited  possibilities  for  land-based  communication  infrastructure:  satellite  communications 
(Satcom)  is  key  enabler  for  civil  and  military  missions  in  remote  and  harsh  environments.  However 
Satcom are mainly located on geostationary orbits, leading to some geographical coverage limitations 
(Figure 38). 

Satellites that are placed in the geosynchronous orbit are ideal for making repeating observations of a 
fixed geographical area (with a given longitude). However, areas beyond 70 degrees north and south 
are not covered. As a consequence, this crucial lack of adequate, autonomous, secure and cost effective 
means of electronic communications infrastructure is challenging particularly in the Arctic region where 
ground-infrastructure is limited or not enough reliable.  

Figure 38: Orbit configuration and limitations over polar areas 

80 

 
 
 
 
In the rest of the section the private and governmental systems covering the Arctic region are listed.  

6.1  EU SatCom 

Satellite communications (SatCom) services can be broadly divided into three categories22: 

1.  MilSatCom  -  Military  SatCom.  It  is  protected  and  guaranteed  SatCom  and  it  is  generally 

provided by purely sovereign military systems.  

2.  GovSatCom  –  Governmental  SatCom.  This  SatCom  guarantee  assured  access  by  offering 

resilient and robust security traits, however it is less protected than MilSatCom.  

3.  ComSatCom – Commercial SatCom. It encompasses satellite communications procured on the 
commercial market on an as-needed and as-available basis. It is intended for broad variety of 
users.  

GovSatCom’s  objective  is  to  ensure  reliable,  secure  and  cost-effective  civil  and  military  satellite 
communication services for public authorities in EU and in Member States managing critical security 
missions and operations. The goal is also to enhance European autonomy and overcome fragmentation 
of demand through the use of affordable and innovative solutions in synergy with industrial players.23  

GovSatCom is based on national capabilities of EU Member States and on commercial assets from both 
EU and non-EU countries.  

GovSatCom has three main use-case families (PwC 2018a): Surveillance, Crisis Management and Key 
Infrastructure monitoring. The user communities are further detailed in Figure 39. 

For Arctic region, the use-case families and user communities are narrowed down to those in Table 11.   

Figure 39. Overview of the user communities and missions for each use-case family of GovSatCom users. Source: PwC 
2018a. 

22 https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/eda-factsheets/2017-06-16-factsheet_govsatcom.pdf 
23 https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do/activities/activities-search/governmental-satellite-communications-(govsatcom) 

81 

 
 
 
                                           
Table 11. Use-case families, user communities and actors for Arctic (PwC 2018a). 

Use-case Family 

User community 

National Actors 

EU Actors 

Surveillance 

Maritime Surveillance and 
control 

Security 
National 
agencies,  State 
fishery 
control  agencies,  Ports 
authorities, Coastguards 

EMSA, Europol, EFCA, 

Crisis Management 

Maritime 
Military interventions 

emergencies, 

MRCC  and  associated 
rescure service providers, 
Port authorities 

EMSA 

Military interventions 

National military forces 

EEAS, Frontex, SatCen 

Key 
Management 

infrastructure 

Institutional 
Communications 

EEAS, ECHO field offices 

Operation  of 
infrastructures 

transport 

National ANSPs,  

Eurocontrol, ERTMS 

Operation 
infrastructure 

of 

space 

ESA,  EUMETSAT,  GSA, 
ESSP 

6.1.1.1  Existing Satellite Communication Systems of GovSatCom in the Arctic 

Commercial Systems 

The PwC study (PwC 2018a) identified commercial systems which are used by EU governmental users 
(Table 12). These systems are used in the areas where GEO and MEO satellites provide coverage.  

Table 12. Main commercial satellite operators used by EU governmental users (PwC 2018b) 

Satellite 
Operator (Name)  

Type of system  

Frequencies  

Status  

Nationality  

Avanti  

Eutelsat  

Eutelsat 
Quantum  

GEO  

GEO  

Ka, Ku  

Operational  

UK  

C, Ku, Ka  

Operational  

FR  

– 

GEO  

Ku  

Planned  

FR  

LEO  

L, C, S  

Operational  

US  

Globalstar 
(Covering 
partially 
Arctic 
services) 

for 

the 
IoT 

Hispasat  

Inmarsat  

Europsat  

Iridium  

GEO  

GEO  

GEO  

LEO  

C, Ku, Ka  

Operational  

ES  

L, Ka  

Operational  

UK  

S, Ka, Ku  

Planned  

UK  

Ka  

Operational  

US  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Iridium Next  

LEO  

O3b  

SES  

MEO  

GEO  

L, Ka  

Ka  

Operational  

US  

Operational  

LUX  

C, Ku, Ka, X  

Operational  

LUX  

Thuraya  

GEO, LEO  

C, L  

Operational  

UAE  

For Arctic environment, those systems using GEO orbits are of limited use (generally up to 70 degrees 
north).  Examining  the  characteristics  of  non-GEO  systems,  only  Iridium  Next  (US-based  Company) 
covers Arctic region entirely. 

Iridium has long history in serving users from the GovSatCom category. For Iridium system description, 
refer  to  section  6.1.  It  is  expected  that  EU  GovSatCom  users  will  continue  to  rely  on  Iridium  for 
communication in Arctic.   

Governmental Systems 

The  governmental  systems  (listed  in  Table  13  belongs  to  the  member  states  and  serve  primarily  for 
MilSatCom. Some of the systems have dual-use payload which would allow its usages for GovSatCom. 
However, the technical details about the governmental systems are not available for general public. This 
makes the assessment for their suitability for GovSatCom in Arctic difficult. All governmental systems 
rely on GEO orbits, therefore their usage for northernmost regions are limited. Some systems which are 
close to the end of service are being replaced by newer platforms (for example, Spainsat).  

Table 13. European systems (dual-use and military) offering capacity and services to governmental users (taken 
from (PwC 2018a) ) 

6.1.1.2  Planned GovSatCom Missions with Arctic Coverage 

Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) satellites – Global Xpress 

The Inmarsat (UK-based Company) will put its Global Xpress payload on HEO satellites. Inmarsat, well 
established provider of SatCom to governments using GEO constellation, will increase its services to 
Arctic using Space Norway’s Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission (ABSM, see description of the system 
in section 6.3.1.4). For the Government sector, the new GX payloads will provide continuous, assured 

83 

 
 
communications  to  tactical  and  strategic  government  users  operating  in  the  Arctic  region,  including 
customers in the USA, Canada, Scandinavia and other Arctic regions24.  

The Norwegian government is currently procuring a dedicated HEO mission for providing broadband 
services (dual use). Date of launch: 2022/2023  

Using LEO satellite mega constellations for GovSatCom 

The satellite mega constellations for broadband internet are starting to put their first satellites on orbits 
and are testing the first connections to users.   

Even though these systems are intended for wide public, the governmental and military users started to 
look at them as well. If the appropriate security and stability of the communication is guaranteed, these 
systems can provide opportunity for GovSatCom in terms of bandwidth and very low latency.  

For  example,  US  Air  Force  has  been  testing  SpaceX’s  Starlink  satellite  broadband  services  and 
demonstrated download speeds of 610 megabits per second into the cockpit of a C-12J Huron twin-
engine turboprop aircraft25. The issues to be solved include characterization of the network to make sure 
users can trust it. They have worked with multiple service providers including SpaceX, Iridium, OneWeb, 
Telesat and O3B to test system capabilities and to assess potential use.  

Furthermore,  collaborations  between  service  provides  are  being  formed.  For  example,  Iridium  and 
OneWeb signed Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) to work together on combined services. MoU 
creates  opportunities  for  companies  to  manufacture  terminals  which  would  be  compatible  with  both 
systems and which would allow synergetic usage.26 Furthermore, OneWeb is considering the Arctic as 
a priority for their broadband connection. The provision of services is planned toward the end of 202027. 
If the reliability and security of this communications infrastructure are guaranteed, it can be seen as an 
opportunity for GovSatCom.  

However, one of the main players that were planning to have their service available in the Arctic in 2020, 
have gone bankrupt just at time of writing following the COVID-19 outbreak. Delays to establishing Arctic 
coverage may be expected. 

In late May 2020, USNORTHCOM that provides command and control of Department of Defense (DOD) 
homeland defense is asking Congress for $130 million to explore OneWeb’s and SpaceX’s capabilities 
in order to provide reliable and potentially cost-effective connectivity to Arctic platforms, installations and 
war fighters. 

6.2  ARGOS 

The  ARGOS  system,  operated  by  CLS/KINEIS  (a  subsidiary  of  CLS)  is  a  Satellite  Data  Collection 
System with a global coverage, allowing collecting in-situ data with intrinsic Doppler location capability. 
The native ARGOS Positioning System measures the Doppler effect of the signal frequencies received 
by  the  satellite  from  the  Argos  transmitters.  Thus,  it  allows  GNSS-Free  positioning  and  ensures  the 
integrity of the mobile position. With an accuracy of up to 250 m, it represents a complementary service 
to classical GNSS positioning data collection.  

Indeed,  in  order  to  increase  the  positioning  accuracy  and  increase  the  frequency  of  data  collection, 
GNSS positions can also be transmitted via Argos (Figure 40, left). Data received by the satellites are 
retransmitted to regional stations in real time (~60 ground stations worldwide in the Argos System) and 
retransmitted to the processing centres and the users. Each Argos satellite allows receiving information 
from all Argos transmitters located within an approximate 5000 km satellite footprint (Figure 40, right). 

24 https://www.inmarsat.com/news/global-xpress-to-be-enhanced-with-arctic-capabilities/ 
25 https://spacenews.com/air-force-enthusiastic-about-commercial-leo-broadband-after-successful-tests/ 
26 https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/iridium-and-oneweb-to-collaborate-on-a-global-satellite-services-offering 
27 https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/oneweb-brings-fiber-like-internet-for-the-arctic-in-2020 

84 

 
 
 
                                           
 
Figure 40: Transmission of GNSS and Argos data to the Processing centre and the users (left side). The instantaneous 
spatial footprint obtained with one Argos satellite pass is indicated (right). Source: Adapted from Argos/CLS 

6.2.1  Better coverage in the Polar Regions 

In 2019, seven operational polar-orbiting satellites are 
part of the Argos system flying Argos-2 and Argos-3 
bi-directional payloads. Thanks to the polar  orbits of 
the satellites, the system provides a global coverage. 
It  includes  meteorological  satellites  from  NOAA,  the 
Metop  satellites  from  EUMETSAT  and  the  SARAL 
satellite  (Satellite  with  ARGOS  and  AltiKA)  from 
the 
CNES/ISRO.  Due 
geographic  data  collected  by  each  satellite  (swath) 
shifts  around  the  polar  axis  at  each  revolution. 
Overlapping between swaths is increased in the Polar 
Regions (satellite orbital period: around 100 minutes). 
Therefore,  satellites  are  able  to  receive  information 
from the Argos transmitters with a revisit frequency of 
about 14 times per day per satellite. The different orbit 
passes obtained along a day for SARAL satellite are 
shown in Figure 41. 

the  Earth’s  rotation, 

to 

With seven satellites in the system, the typical revisit 
time  over  the  Artic  region  is  around  15  minutes  in 
average. 

Figure  41:  SARAL  Orbit  tracks  over  the  Arctic 
computed  along  a  day.  Orbits  are  represented 
using SAT-LAB. 

Argos data in the Arctic 

In  addition  to  the  low  power  data  collection  service,  ARGOS  offers  a  range  of  monitoring  solutions: 
backup  tracking;  geofencing;  sensor  alert;  transmission  monitoring;  underwater  beacon  monitoring; 
moored buoy monitoring… All above services can be activated on any ARGOS platform. 

85 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
In the Arctic region (above 65°N latitude) 724 platforms with Argos transmitter are operational. The 
platforms include gliders, ice buoys, drifted or moored buoys, animals, ships... The number of platforms 
operational is indicated per sector in the list below.  

Key sectors and associated number of platforms: 

—  Oceanography (53),  

—  meteorology/hydrology (20),  

—  sustainable management of fisheries (17), 

—  wildlife monitoring (634) 

With regard to wildlife monitoring, the ARGOS system is used for animal tracking to study the 
biodiversity and behaviour of animals such as their movements, feeding, reproduction and 
resilience to the changing environment.  In Figure 30, you can see the travel from Svalbard to 
Canada followed by an Arctic fox. 

Figure 43: Animal tracking applications using the Argos telemetry satellite. The travel from 
Svalbard to Canada followed by an Arctic fox has been recorded. The movement rate velocity 
is depicted with the sea ice concentration. Credits: A. Tarroux, Norwegian Institute for Nature 
Research. 

6.2.2  ARGOS-4 & KINEIS Nanosatellites Constellation: the future of Argos 

In 2019-2020, two new satellites will complete the Argos satellite constellation: 

  ANGELS, the first ARGOS nanosatellite prototype (end of 2019), 

  And OceanSat-3, an Indian satellite embedded the first new generation Argos-4 payload (bi-

directional capability, increased system capacity, more frequency bandwidths…).  

In 2021-2023, important milestones will occur ensuring the continuity and major improvements in the 
Argos System for the upcoming decade: 

  Two more Argos-4 payloads to be launched on CDARS and MetOp-SG satellites (resp. in 2021 

and 2023); 

86 

 
 
 
  And mostly, in 2022, the launch of the dedicated KINEIS Constellation with 25 Nanosatellites 
fully compatible with the current Argos System, allowing a typical satellite revisit less than 
20 minutes at low latitudes and near real time coverage over the Polar Regions.     

For the Arctic region the system revisit performance will allow to get a near-real time service and monitor 
key variables as mentioned in section 6.2 (current Argos system).  

The existing ability of the communication system to operate under harsh environment conditions will be 
reinforced  thanks  to  additional  features.  Therefore,  Argos-4  will  further  enhance  its  performance 
including fast processing low energy consumption algorithms, an on-board processing capacity, and the 
inclusion of a dedicated bandwidth for very low power transmitters.  

6.3  Terrestrial and Satellite-based Broadband Internet Systems 

Internet connection in the Arctic remains a challenge due to lack of appropriate infrastructure and the 
cost of its installation. Low density of population makes the traditional internet connection via physical 
cables (copper cables, optical cables) economically unfeasible. Harsh climate poses another challenge 
on the infrastructure which must resist low temperatures, strong wind, snowpack and ice. Furthermore, 
the lack of skilled personnel being able to install and maintain the necessary infrastructure is another 
challenge to consider.     

With  the  development  of  fast  internet  via  fiber  cables  and  with  coming  5G  network  it  is  crucial  to 
overcome these challenges to keep Arctic far from digital divide. It this understood that fast (100 Mbit/s) 
and  low  latency  (less  than  100  ms)  internet  connection  will  be  essential  for  developing  of  human 
activities in the Arctic. Benefits of broadband connection are clearly visible in economy, e-commerce, 
education, scientific research, trade and transportation, e-government, community involvement, public 
health, safety, and security.  

The available technologies have their pros and cons (Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group 
and Arctic Economic Council 2017). They are summarized in the Table 14 table below. Note that cons 
related to Satellite technology will be overcome in near future as discussed further on.   

Table 14. Broadband connection technologies and their pros and cons. 

Technology 

Pros 

Cons 

Optical Fiber 

Mobile Wireless 
(3G, 4G, 4G/LTE, 
5G) 

Very fast and efficient with less signal 
degradation; highly resistant to 
electromagnetic interference and low 
rate of bit error; scalable (wavelengths 
can be turned on or off on demand); 
longevity once deployed and relatively 
easy to replace or repair. 
More easily deployed than fix 
broadband; provides the convenience of 
mobile broadband access. 

Microwave 
(Fixed Wireless)  

Satellite  

Wireless backhaul alternative to copper 
or fiber connections (less expensive, 
easier deployment); lower installation 
costs compared to buried cable 
systems; can transfer data at speeds of 
1 Gbit/s. 
Terrestrial backbone and area networks 
are not needed; ability to connect 
users across large regions; heavily 
utilized by the maritime industry; LEO 
and other satellites with non-

87 

High investment costs; time consuming, 
lengthy deployment; susceptible to physical 
damage, such as accidental cutting; 
unidirectional light propagation requires 
concurrent cables to be laid to achieve 
bidirectional propagation of information. 

Signals are shared and thus can be degraded 
at peak usage times; signal strength impacted 
by distance, weather, line-of-sight, and other 
external factors. In addition, with regard to 5G 
specifically, the technology is not yet ready for 
deployment. The ITU aims to finalize 5G 
standards and protocols by 2020.111 5G also 
requires high-speed terrestrial backhaul. 
Limited range compared to satellite; requires 
line of sight; may be subject to rain fade; 
bandwidth is shared. 

Many existing satellites are geostationary 
(positioned over the equator) and service 
degrades substantially at latitudes above 
75 degrees north; expensive initial investment 
and maintenance; expensive end-user 

 
 
 
 
 
Copper (e.g., 
Digital 
Subscriber Line 
(DSL))  

Coaxial cable 
(via cable TV 
networks)  

geostationary orbits that are currently 
being developed and deployed could 
provide the Arctic with broadband 
speeds of 50 Mbit/s. 
Rely on existing copper wires that are 
already present in many locations 
(though potentially less so in the Arctic 
region). 

Rely on existing cable TV networks 
(lower deployment costs where 
networks already exist); generally more 
capable/efficient than traditional copper 
telephone networks. 

devices; signal degraded by weather and 
line-of-sight problems. 

Speed depends on the length of the copper 
line; upload speeds generally substantially 
lower than download speeds; slower than fiber 
(though VDSL and other developments 
increasing DSL speeds). 
Internet use by multiple users simultaneously 
can degrade service and slow speeds during 
peak hours; often not available in remote 
areas. 

6.3.1.1  LEO Satellite Constellations 

The only system which can provide broadband internet to  Arctic  is the  one provided by  Iridium. The 
Iridium Next satellite constellation provides L-band voice and data coverage to satellite phones, pagers 
and integrated transceivers over the entire Earth surface.28 

The constellation consists of 66 active satellites in orbit, required for global coverage, and additional 
spare  satellites  to  serve  in  case  of failure.  Satellites  are  in  LEO  at  a  height  of  approximately  485 mi 
(781 km)  and  inclination  of  86.4°.  Orbital  velocity  of  the  satellites  is  approximately  17,000 mph 
(27,000 km/h). Satellites communicate with neighbouring satellites via Ka band inter-satellite links. Each 
satellite can have four inter-satellite links 

This design means that there is excellent satellite visibility and service coverage especially at the North 
and South poles28. 

Reaching across land, sea, and air, including the Polar Regions, Iridium® solutions are ideally suited for 
industries such as maritime, aviation, government/military, land mobile, and the internet of things (IoT) 
28. 

The layout of the Iridium Next constellation is shown on Figure 42.  

Figure 42. Iridium Next Constellation in the Arctic region. Orbits have been depicted using the AGI STK software. 

28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation 

88 

 
 
                                           
The coverage of midband and broadband internet is provided via Iridium Certus® service. The midband 
service provides speed of 22Kbps-88Kbps while broadband service ranges between 176 Kbps and 352 
Kbps.29 Such limited speed is sufficient for simple, less speed demanding applications (like simple email 
text messages etc).  

6.3.1.2  LEO Satellite Mega-Constellations  

Important note (April 2020): Just before finalization of this report, the space industry and programmes 
were  affected  by  economic  consequences  of  measures  against  the  spread  of  coronavirus.  Some 
companies  were  affected  only  marginally,  while  others  were  affected  heavily.  The  most  striking  and 
unfortunate case was the bankruptcy of OneWeb30 – the company whose LEO satellite constellation 
was supposed to start cover Arctic region with broadband internet in late 2020. This is now unrealistic 
given the need to re-structure the company and to execute the sale process. The OneWeb is used in 
subsequent text for explanation of the concept of mega-constellations and some technical parameters 
of  their  satellite  constellation  are  discussed.  Given  the  current  situation  of  the  company,  some 
information can be outdated. 

The concept of LEO satellites mega constellation lies in placing large number (from 100s to 1000s) of 
small satellites (150-200 kg) on LEO orbits (from approx. 500 to 1000 km). High number of satellites in 
one orbit and high number of orbits (of different geometrical characteristics) will ensure satellite visibility 
from practically any spot in the Earth (including Polar Regions). The signal from user terminal will go via 
satellite (or even more satellites connected with optical link) into the ground-based “gateways” which 
will be connected with terrestrial internet. In order to maintain instant connection of the user terminal to 
internet,  the  gateway  must  be  in  Line  of  Sight  (SoL)  of  a  satellite  (or  satellites).  This  requirement  is 
crucial especially for Arctic region. The network of gateways must be extended as far north as possible 
to be in SoL or satellites must be equipped with inter-satellite optical communication so that signal can 
be relayed via satellites into a gateway in SoL. 

For  illustration  of  the  general  system  architecture,  the  OneWeb31  constellation  will  be  used.  Other 
constellations are using similar design; their differences will be discussed further on.  

The design of OneWeb broadband system is depicted on Figure 43. The description of each elements 
of the system including Arctic-related challenges are as follows.  

Figure 43: System design of satellite-based broadband internet of OneWeb.  

29 https://www.iridium.com/services/iridium-certus/ 
30 https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/oneweb-files-for-chapter-11-restructuring-to-execute-sale-process 
31 Source: https://www.oneweb.world/ 

89 

 
 
 
                                           
User  Devices:  These  are  widely  used  devices  (mobile  phones,  tablets,  laptops,  computers  etc)  and 
specialized devices (for example autonomous sensors) which are connected to the User Terminal. All 
these devices need electric power to be functional. This can be challenging in the Arctic without access 
to the power grid. Autonomous power generation systems (e.g., photovoltaic, gas or diesel powered) 
have to be used to charge these devices.  

User  Terminals:  These  are  small  antennas  which  transmit  signal  into  the  satellite.  Typically  Ku  (12-
18 GHz) frequencies are used to transmit signal between satellite and user terminal and/or Ka (26.5–
40  GHz)  frequencies  for  communication  between  a  satellite  and  a  gateway.  Each  constellation  has 
different usage of these frequencies.  As in the case of user devices, it is necessary to secure power 
source for user terminals. There are various types of user terminals for usage on home, schools and 
residential complexes, cellular backhauls, road and trains, marine, aviation and emergency. Examples 
of user terminals are shown in Figure 44. The user terminal for residential use is shown on Figure 45.   

Figure 44. Various types of user terminals.32   

32 OneWeb Global Access, ITU International Satellite Symposium 2016 

90 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 45. Right: Solar powered user terminal33, left: Residential Pico Cell with 200m range.34 

Satellites:  Satellites  are  typically  150-200  kg  and  they  are  placed  in  multiple  LEO  orbits  of  various 
geometric properties. The number of satellites ranges from hundreds to thousands (depending on the 
constellation  design)  to  achieve  the  required  broadband  communications  capacity  in  the  populated 
areas. The example of OneWeb global coverage is given on Figure 46.  

Figure 46. Arctic coverage using the current six active satellites from OneWeb (last status February 2020).  

Gateways:  Gateways  (or  satellite  network  portal  locations)  are  reception/transmission  terminals 
connected to internet. They have to have sufficient density and global coverage to make sure that they 
are in Line of Sight. This is especially relevant for Arctic region.  They must be connected to reliable 
power source; they must be on safe and secure location and they must have appropriate connection to 
internet.  The example of OneWeb gateway locations is shown in Figure 47. 

33 https://www.idsa.org/awards/idea/social-impact-design/oneweb-user-terminal-and-solar-array 

34https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/workshops/2017-Bariloche/Presentations/16-MariahShumanOneweb.pdf 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Figure 47. Indicative satellite network portal locations (gateways) of OneWeb.34 

92 

 
 
 
 
6.3.1.3  Future Satellite Mega-Constellations with Arctic Coverage 

Until  now  the  main  infrastructure  used  for  satellite-based  broadband  connection  were  geostationary 
satellites  (GEO).  Since  they  are  positioned  over  the  equator,  the  direct  line  of  sight  (LoS)  which  is 
necessary  for  connection  is  very  low  over  the  horizon  or  LoS  cannot  be  established  at  all.  Another 
limitation  is  the  latency  of  signal  which  is  not  compatible  with  current  and  future  (5G)  broadband 
requirements.  

In recent  years, the concepts of placing  high  number of satellites (mega constellation)  on LEOs has 
been  studied  and  brought  to  maturity.  Advancements  in  telecommunication  technologies  (including 
inter-satellite  links  and  phase-arrays  antennas  for  spacecraft  and  ground  terminals),  satellite 
manufacturing  (including  mass  production  of  small  satellites)  and  launching  capabilities  brought  the 
concept  of  LEO  broadband  satellites  into  operational  and  economic  viability.  If  successful,  these 
systems will provide broadband internet into remote areas including Arctic. LEO orbits (up to 2000 km), 
optical  links  between  satellites  and  sufficient  number  of  ground  stations  with  internet  connection 
(gateways) will ensure fast broadband connection (in the range of 50 Mbit/s) with low latency (less than 
100 ms).  

A total of 11 companies have applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deploy 
large-constellations  in  non-geostationary  satellite  orbits  (NGSO)  as  a  means  to  provide  broadband 
services.  These  new  designs  range  from  2  satellites,  as  proposed  by  Space  Norway  (see  section 
6.3.1.4), to thousands of satellites, as  proposed by  SpaceX. Due to the large  number of satellites in 
these constellations, the name “mega constellations” was coined to refer to these new proposals (del 
Portillo, Cameron, and Crawley 2019). 

As far as mega constellations following 3 systems are in advanced stage of deployment (some satellites 
were already launched or are about to be launched): OneWeb (UK), Starlink (SpaceX, US), Telesat LEO 
(Telesat,  Canada).  Very  recently,  Amazon  (US)  has  released  details  about  its  plan  to  deploy  3236 
broadband satellite system. However more detailed analysis of usability of mega constellation for Arctic 
concentrates  on  three  former  systems.  Basic  characteristics  of  three  systems  and  company  info  are 
summarized  in  Table  15.  Please  note  that  some  parameters  (number  of  satellites,  orbits,  number  of 
gateway station) can be changed in future.   

Table 15: Main characteristics of the 3 future candidate Mega Constellations: OneWeb, Starlink, and Telesat LEO 
including  number  of  satellites,  orbits  descriptions,  number  of  gateway  stations,  mission  status  and  estimated 
Internet Throughput. 

OneWeb 
(https://www.oneweb.world/) 

Starlink 

Telesat LEO 

Number 
Satellites 

of 

650 

4,425-11,943 

117-512 

Orbit 
descriptions 

18, 49 satellites per plane with in-orbit 
spares 

Polar orbits, 1200 km altitude 

Approx. Number 
of 
gateway 
stations 

70 

orbital 

shells 
3 
(83 inclined 
orbits): 
550 km  (1600  satellites) 
1150 km (2800 satellites), 
340 km (7500 satellites) 

Polar  and 
orbits, 
altitude 

inclined 
1000 km 

123 

42 

Expected 
beginning 
service 

Customer demo in 2020, commercial 
service in 2021,  

of 

First 6  satellite  launched in  February 
2019  

commercial 
Initial 
operation 
in  2020,  60 
satellites launched in May 
2019 

service 

Global 
in 
2023,  two  prototypes 
launched in 2018 

Owner, country  OneWeb, UK 

SpaceX, US 

Telesat, CA 

93 

      
 
 
Satellite 
producer 

Investors 

Estimated 
Internet 

Throughput 

Airbus, plant located in Florida (US) 

Space X 

(lead 

investor),  Airbus, 
SoftBank 
bharti,  Coca-Cola,  grupo  Salinas, 
Hughes, Intelsat, Maxar, , Qualcomm, 
Virgin, Rwanda 

Space X 

Airbus  with  SSTL, 
Maxar,    with  Thales 
Alenia Space (TBC by 
end of 2019) 

Public Sector Pension 
Investment 
Board 
(37%),  Loral  Space 
Investment 
(63%), 
Canadian 
from 
Government  

Up  to  400  Mbps  down/30  Mbps  up 
(user terminals) 

Up to 1 Gbps 

Up to 1 Gbps 

The  geometry  of  orbits  and  density  of  satellite  of  all  three  candidate  constellation  (Figure  48)  allows 
visibility of satellites over the Arctic.   

Figure 48. Orbits of mega constellations: OneWeb (upper left), Starlink (upper right) and Telesat LEO.  

94 

 
 
 
 
Based on the simulation of LoS provided by del Portillo et al. (2019), the coverage of Arctic is sufficient. 
All three constellations will have several satellites visible from ground gateway (LoS) if these are located 
in proper location in the arctic. Furthermore, inter-satellite link deployed by Telesat and Starlink will allow 
more flexibility in location of gateways. Figure 49 shows simulated number of satellites in LoS in different 
latitudes. Looking at the number of satellites between 66.5˚ (polar circle) and 85˚ N and the location of 
land mass, it will be feasible to place enough gateways to cover the whole Arctic. 

The  mega  constellation  will  allow  land,  sea  and  air  connection  to  broadband  (fiber-like)  internet 
connectivity in the Arctic. They will start to provide the service from 2021 onwards.       

Figure 49. Simulation of LoS of OneWeb, Telesat and Starlink (SpaceX) systems in different latitudes (left), and land 
mass location with population centres (right).35   

6.3.1.4  Future Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission (ASBM) - Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) 

satellites - HEOSAT 

Two satellites will be launched late 2022 to a HEO orbits by Space X in late 2022 with the aim of being 
operational in 2023. The satellites will be built by Northrop Grumman and will be operated by Space 
Norway HEOSAT AS (subsidiary of Space Norway owned by Norwegian Government) in cooperation 
with Inmarsat, Norwegian Ministry of Defence and Kongsberg Satellites Services (KSAT, Tromso). The 
satellites  will  provide  full  mobile  broadband  coverage  to  civilian  and  military  users  in  the  Arctic.  The 
system is scheduled to be  operational for at  least 15  years  with possibility to use also  geostationary 
satellites (where available). The payload will include military payload for the US Defence Departments 
and the Norwegian Ministry of Defence and commercial capacity for Space Norway. The two satellites 
will be incorporated to Inmarsat’s Global Xpress geostationary constellation which is being built.  

The  constellation  will  have  user  throughput  of  50  Mbit/s  downlink  and  5  Mbit/s  uplink.  The  main 
customers  using  the  system  are/will  be  defence  governmental  users,  aviation,  maritime,  energy  and 
enterprise. 

To operate the system, users must have terminal (antenna) which will provide connection to internet via 
the Inmarsat network infrastructure.  

35 http://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/SCIENCE-COMMUNICATIONS/Arctic-region/Maps/Cities 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Summary of Satellite communications (SatCom) Capability in the Arctic 

SatCom are key enabler for civil and military applications in particular in remote and harsh environment 
such  as  Arctic.  However,  their  availability  depends  widely  on  the  geometry  of  the  constellation  of 
satellites, which are mostly located on geostationary orbits meaning geographical limitations in the case 
of extreme latitude regions such as Polar regions. 

After defining the main categories of SatCom available: the military (MilSatCom), the governmental 
ones and the Commercial SatCom, a detailed list of use-case families for GovSatCom is given in 
the Surveillance, Crisis management and key infrastructures domains. EU actors are identified for 
those three domains and for each user community mainly for maritime surveillance and emergencies, 
military interventions and infrastructure management. 

Looking  to  the  commercial  systems  the  only  system  covering  the  Arctic  entirely  is  the  Iridium 
constellation (US-based company) one. Also for the governmental systems, the study highlighted that 
the  capacity  offered  by  the  MilSatCom  is  limited  in  the  Arctic  since  most  of  the  systems  are 
geostationary.  

As  a  result,  we  must  consider  future  capacity  to  fulfil  the  needs  of  the  Arctic  region.  A  dedicated 
Norwegian HEO mission providing broadband services (dual-use commercial and military) is planned 
for 2022/2023. Also, LEO satellite mega constellations for GovSatCom are planned. However, with the 
Covid-19 outbreak some delays and uncertainties are currently encountered for the future missions. 

Regarding intermittent connectivity, the Arctic is well covered thanks to the Argos system. More than 
700 platforms are available beyond 65°N latitude mainly for oceanography, meteorology, fisheries and 
wildlife monitoring. Additional nanosatellites constellation (Kinéis) and some other future missions like 
ANGELS will complete the Argos satellite constellation. 

About broadband internet a detailed table comparing the pros and cons of the available technologies is 
presented. Regarding LEO satellites, they allow to reach connectivity across large regions but degrades 
above 75° North latitude. Iridium Next constellation is currently the only one to provide L-band voice and 
data coverage over the Arctic. 

Another concept is very promising and consists in placing a high number of satellites on LEOs taking 
advantage of the inter-satellite links. The so-called Mega constellations will allow land, sea and air 

96 

 
connection to broadband (fiber-like) internet connectivity in the Arctic. They will start to provide 
the service from 2021 onwards. 

A timeline summary is provided below with both broadband communications and low bit rate SatCom 
capacity in the Arctic region. 

Timeline of the main SATCOM systems with Arctic coverage. 

97 

 
 
7  Arctic SSA challenges, needs and objectives 

Ionospheric effects can be a major source of disruption to GNSS signals. Prediction of such effects is 
crucial in particular when high accuracy positioning is needed for Aviation or maritime sectors.  

Europe  capability  regarding  the  Space  Surveillance  and  Tracking  (SST)  of  objects  in  Earth  orbit  is 
operated by the radar TIRA. It is a unique system that offers space agencies all over the world (outside 
the USA) the possibility to measure the orbit with high precision or produce a high resolution image of 
objects such as satellites. The system is therefore used to gain precise measurements of space debris, 
prevent evasive manoeuvres for operative satellites or create an image of an object that has gone out 
of  control.  This  includes  technical  faults  or  the  uncontrolled  re-entry  of  satellites  into  the  Earth's 
atmosphere. 

At  European  level,  the  EISCAT  (European  Incoherent  Scatter  Scientific  Association)  operates  three 
incoherent scatter radar systems, at 224 MHz, 931 MHz in Northern Scandinavia and one at 500 MHz 
on Svalbard, used to study the interaction between the Sun and the Earth as revealed by disturbances 
in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. The EISCAT radars are also used for continuous monitoring of 
the LEO debris. The radars are part of the European Space Agency’s SSA Programme. 

The European Commission-funded Galileo Ionosphere Prediction Service (IPS) to monitor ionospheric 
activity and inform GNSS users in good time of an upcoming event that could disrupt GNSS signals and 
applications. 

ionospheric  activity 
A  prototype  was  delivered  early  2019 
(https://ips.telespazio.com/).  The  main  prediction  products  include  the  monitoring  of  the  Sun  activity, 
Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), Total Electron Content (TEC) and scintillation. For the operational users 
positioning  error  and  loss  of  lock  are  provided.  With  regard  to  the  Arctic  region,  developments  are 
currently on-going at JRC to enhance the IPS and extent the availability of products in the Polar Regions.  

to  monitor  and 

forecast 

the 

JRC is investigating the possibility of using an analysis of the TEC available within Global Ionospheric 
Maps (GIM). In particular, the improvements of the IPS will include a now casting product of the TEC. 
Monitoring of the vertical TEC (VTEC) is given in Figure 50. 

Figure 50: VTEC monitoring at 2000UT of day 360 of 2018 over the Northern pole cap. Image generated in the framework 
of the European Commission Service Contract POLarGIMs. 

98 

 
 
8  Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and satellite communications in 

the Arctic 

four  components  of 

The 
the  EU  Space 
programme: Copernicus for the EO, Galileo for 
the  Global  Navigation  Satellite 
system, 
GovSatCom  for  the  satellite  communication 
systems  and  the  Space  Situational  awareness 
are interrelated.   

Several  EO  satellites  that  are  placed  in  LEOs 
are  equipped  with  GNSS  receivers  that  allow 
precise orbit determination and that are used for 
high precision applications such as altimetry.  

Communications  is  essential  in  the  functioning 
of EO satellites. Until now, EO satellites are able 
to  downlink  information  while  in  direct  line  of 
sight with a ground station. However, they do not 
benefit  from  a  connectivity  and  storage  of 
information in-between nodes. Some dedicated 
ground  stations  are  available  in  the  Arctic  like 
Kiruna  or  Svalbard,  but  specific  users  may 
require more systematic data collection and fast 
visualization  for  high-resolution  sea  ice  maps 
and to ensure safer navigation.  

In this section specific products and techniques using various elements of the EU space programme in 
the Arctic region are highlighted. 

8.1  First European Arctic Reanalysis products 

Climate reanalysis combine past observations with models to generate consistent time series of multiple 
climate  variables.  Reanalyses  are  among  the  most-used datasets  in  the  geophysical  sciences.  They 
provide a comprehensive description of the observed climate as it has evolved during recent decades, 
on 3D grids at sub-daily intervals.  

Figure  51:  The  two  domains  for  the  reanalysis,  a  Western  domain  (labelled  “IGB”)  and  an  Eastern  domain  (labelled 
“AROME-Arctic”). Credit: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ 

99 

 
 
 
The Copernicus Arctic Regional ReAnalysis (CARRA)36 will cover the period from July  1997 to June 
2021 (24 years). It will be performed with the HARMONIE-AROME numerical weather prediction system 
at  2.5  km  horizontal  mesh  using  a  3-dimensional  variational  assimilation  scheme  for  the  upper  air 
analysis and a three-hourly update frequency. The reanalysis production will be carried out at the high-
performance computing facility of ECMWF. The reanalysis products will be made available to the public 
at the end of the project in 2021.  

This dedicated  Arctic reanalysis  will  use global reanalysis  data from ERA5 as  boundary forcing, and 
with its 2.5 km mesh provide more local detail than the coarser resolution products of the ERA5 global 
reanalysis. The ERA5 global reanalysis is currently a good example of synergy assimilating an increased 
number of satellite data including GNSS radio occultation data (see section 8.2 for more details on the 
GNSS RO technique) and Copernicus products to provide analysis of atmospheric states and provide 
improved surface state, snow and ice parametrisation, sea states.  

An example of seasonal temperature anomaly over the Arctic region is depicted in Figure 52. 

Figure  52:  Surface  air  temperature  anomaly  for  winter,  spring,  summer  and  autumn  2018  relative  to  the  respective 
seasonal averages for the period 1981-2010. Winter values relate to December 2017 - February 2018. Data source: ERA5. 
Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)/ECMWF. 

8.2  GNSS Radio Occultation 

The space-based GNSS RO technique scans the atmosphere vertically at fine resolution (close to 300 
meter in the troposphere) by precisely measuring the delay between a GNSS transmitter and a GNSS 
receiver aboard a Low Earth Orbiter, when the former is setting below or rising above the Earth limb. 

36 http://www.umr-cnrm.fr/aladin/IMG/pdf/xiaohua_yang_asm2019_carra_.pdf 

100 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
The standard thermodynamic products are extracted from the excess delay induced by the atmosphere 
at different layers. These observations have also sharper weighting functions in the vertical compared 
to radiances and provide good vertical resolution properties. The bending angle is the parameter which 
is assimilated in the NWP models. 

The  RO  measurements  brought  significant  improvements  in  forecast  quality  (Anthes  et  al.  2008; 
Cardinali  2009)  and  in  atmosphere  reanalyses  (Poli,  Healy,  and  Dee  2010;  A.  J.  Simmons  and  Poli 
2015) because they complement the information provided by satellite radiances and therefore allowed 
bringing a superior vertical resolution.  

GPS-RO  can  be  assimilated  without  bias  correction.  Therefore,  they  are  able  to  anchor  the  bias 
correction  of  radiance  measurements.  The  ability  of  GNSS  RO  to  be  assimilated  without  any  bias 
correction is a strong asset in the context of numerical weather forecasting context as well as for re-
analysis. 

For the Arctic, GNSS-RO data are a key asset for climate monitoring and for ionospheric research. The 
various on-going and future missions are detailed at European and International level (see below). An 
overview of the full set of GNSS-RO mission is shown in Figure 53.  

101 

Figure 53: Timeline of the GNSS radio occultation missions. Source: Axel von Engeln (Eumetsat, May 2020).  

8.2.1  European missions 

The operational RO missions that are notable for the Arctic region are provided by dedicated payloads 
on board Terra-SAR, MetopB, MetopC (GRAS receiver). 

From the research side, Paz is a Spanish EO and reconnaissance satellite launched on 22 February 
2018, it is an x-band SAR based on the TerraSAR-X platform. The ROHP-PAZ experiment (IEEC, JPL, 
UCAR,  NOAA,  Hisdesat)  allows  to  measure  the  phase  delay  due  to  refraction  during  occultation 
between  GPS  and  LEO.  The  occulted  signal  is  measured  in  two  orthogonal  polarization  that,  by 
processing, can also provide equivalent information as in circular polarization. This is used  to generate 
the ordinary radio-occultation sounding, and disseminated in NRT under agreements with NOAA; the 
linear ones are affected by large drops of heavy rain. For the first time, occulting signals of the GNSSs 

102 

 
have been acquired at two polarizations from a Low Earth Orbiter, and it shows that they sense heavy 
precipitation and frozen hydrometeors (Cardellach et al. 2019; 2014). 

Tech-Demosat 1 one of the UK’s national satellites provides demonstration of payloads in operational 
conditions support the monitoring of radio occultation events.  

In the near future Sentinel-6 (planned launch 2020) will also have a GNSS radio-occultation the Triple-
G receiver (GPS, Glonass) whose primary mission objective is dedicated to atmospheric measurements. 

8.2.2 

International missions 

Spire is the only commercial Radio Occultation producer using Galileo signals until now, distribution of 
the commercial data to the users are still all under discussion. 

The Chinese Feng-Yun -3 satellite (CMA) which is part of a series of eight operational meteorological 
satellites has on board a dual frequency GPS/Beidou receiver developed for GNSS RO studies. The 
programme lifetime is operational since 2008 with a 10-year lifetime expectancy. 

GRACE-FO a joint US/German mission (NASA/DLR) launched in June 2018 has also on board a GNSS-
RO  payload  the  so-called  Tri-G  receiver  (acquiring  GPS,  Galileo  and  Glonass  signals).  The  mission 
designed for research purposes is not providing RO data for assimilation for now. 

In addition, the recent launch in June 2019 of the COSMIC-2 constellation missions (US/Taiwan) will 
enhance the Radio Occultation capacity worldwide but with coverage centred on the equatorial region.   

8.3  GNSS Reflectometry (GNSS-R) 

GNSS-R  is  a  low-cost  passive  remote  sensing  space  technique.  The  payload  does  not  contain  a 
transmitter  which  allows  making  it  small  enough  to  be  installed  on  a  microsatellite.  Generally,  the 
spaceborne GNSS-R payload consists of one or two nadir-oriented LHCP antenna, a zenith-oriented 
RHCP antenna and a specialized GNSS-R receiver. 

Signals  of  Opportnity  (SoOp)  using  existing  navigation  satellite  systems  are  used  to  retrieve  a  large 
range of measurements: surface soil moisture (Chew et al. 2016), ocean surface winds (Clarizia et al. 
2016; G. Foti et al. 2015; Giuseppe Foti et al. 2017; Ruf and Balasubramaniam 2018), sea ice thickness, 
altimetry (Cardellach et al. 2004; Clarizia et al. 2016), sea ice cover and wind speed over sea surface. 
All those measurements are relevant for the Arctic users. 

The UK Tech-Demosat 1 mission (UK TDS-1) was 
designed by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. The 
satellite  was  launched  in  2014,  the  specificity  of 
the  orbit  of  TechDemosat-1  with  those  of  GPS 
satellites  allow 
to  get  high  spatio-temporal 
resolution  and  capture  the  dynamic  of  sea  ice 
even close to the North pole. A sea ice detection 
algorithm  using  TDS-1  GNSS-R  data  over  the 
Arctic  has  been  developed  by  Alonso-Arroyo, 
Zavorotny,  and  Camps  (2017)  to  detect  sea  ice 
presence  over  the  Arctic  with  a  very  strong 
probability  of  detection  (97%).  Sea  ice  precise 
altimetry can reach a precision of 4-5 cm with an 
infra  kilometric 
intregration 
<20ms) was demonstrated by Li et al. 2017.  

resolution 

(time 

Surface  characterization  and  distinction  between 
open  water  (in  blue)  and  sea  ice  (in  red)  from 
GNSS-R using TDS-1 is represented in Figure 54 
(Cartwright, Banks, and Srokosz 2019).  

from  GNSS-
Figure  54:  Surface  characterization 
reflectometry (TechDemosat-1) over the Arctic region for 
the August and maximum extent in 2016. Red displays a 
sea ice assignment and blue an open water assignment. 
The black shaded area represents transition between sea 
ice and water during the month using the in the European 
Space Agency Climate Change Initiative product (Toudal 
Pedersen et al. 2017). From (Cartwright et al. 2019)  

103 

 
 
 
Recently the GNSS-R technique has also shown its capacity in providing wind field measurement with 
the NASA CYGNSS mission (equatorial only coverage) and studies are on-going to assess the benefits 
of  GNSS-R  data  in  weather  forecasting  models.  GNSS-R  data  assimilation  experiment  have  been 
conducted in the framework of the OSI SAF 37. 

Conventional ground-based GNSS antenna used for tectonic studies can also be used to retrieve sea 
level changes using reflected signals.  

Kim and Park 2019 recently measured sea level rise in the Arctic region around a recent PBO Alaskan 
station in St Michael (AT01). The signals transmitted by the Galileo satellites were used and allowed to 
improve the quantity and quality of the GNSS observations to retrieve sea level changes. The Center 
for Orbit Determination in Europe’s Multi-GNSS Experiment final orbit and satellite clock products were 
used to minimize the satellite orbit error. 

GNSS-R technology on-board cubesats to complement Sentinels 

FFSCAT a mission promoted by ESA EO Directorate including a constellation of small satellites (6 Units 
Cubesats)  will  provide  data  on  Earth’s  ice  and  soil  moisture  content  to  complement  the  Sentinels 
satellites and contribute to the Copernicus Land and Marine Environment services. Launch is expected 
in June  2020. The mission includes a GNSS-R payload tracking both  GPS  and  Galileo signals. This 
mission was awarded the 1st Prize of the 2017 Copernicus Masters competition in 2019.  

8.4  Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

AIS was developed in the 1990s, in the first place as a ship anti-collision system. An AIS transponder 
carried by a ship automatically transmits very short messages on VHF containing fixed information such 
as  ship  identity,  geographic  position,  speed,  heading,  and  more.  The  transponder  also  receives  the 
messages from surrounding ships in sight. The received data are displayed on a screen on board the 
ship  to  create  awareness  of  the  nearby  traffic,  and  to  warn  for  impending  collisions.  Furthermore, 
receivers are installed on shore to monitor the ship traffic along the coast within VHF line-of-sight, which 
can be typically 30-40 nautical miles. AIS carriage is now internationally mandated by IMO rules for the 
larger ships (>300 tonnes). Some jurisdictions have even stricter requirements, e.g. in the EU all fishing 
vessels  >12  m  must  have  AIS.  Smaller  ships  may  voluntarily  carry  AIS,  the  so-called  Class  B  AIS. 
Technical requirements are set globally by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).  

Although not originally designed for that, the AIS messages can also be picked up in space. As an AIS 
receiver  is  small  and  low-cost,  it  is  relatively  easy  to  put  one  on  a  satellite.  Since  2008,  several 
companies  (exactEarth,  ORBCOMM,  SpaceQuest)  have  deployed  AIS  receivers  on  satellites  as  a 
commercial venture, and also governments (Norway) and Universities have flown AIS satellites.  

Even a single satellite gives global coverage of ship traffic (at least of the AIS-carrying part), but for a 
useful update rate, a constellation is necessary. Operators like exactEarth and ORBCOMM now have 
constellations of tens of satellites, and Spire plans to have more than 120 by end of 2020 (88 satellites 
are currently in orbit), providing near-continuous monitoring of the global (AIS-reporting) ship traffic. In 
order to have the data available in real-time, a network of ground stations is needed and/or inter-satellite 
data links. The extent to which a single satellite covers the Arctic depends on the inclination of its orbit 
– some AIS receivers are in low orbits, giving high update rates over the low latitudes but not covering 
the poles. But most constellations cover the Arctic very well.  

Picking up AIS signals is not EO; it is probably more correctly classified as SIGINT, signals intelligence. 
Signals are picked up and decoded that were not intended to be received by the listener.  

AIS reception in space is not as good as on the surface, due to long distance, horizontal emission by 
the ships (both leading to low signal strength in space) and the presence of too many emitters at the 
same time in the satellite footprint (which is much larger than the area in line-of-sight seen from a ground-
based receiver). The latter effect can lead to saturation and complete blindness in very busy seas like 
the  Mediterranean,  North  Sea  or  South  China  Sea.  Many  countries  have  a  network  of  coastal  AIS 
receivers that monitor the ship traffic out to some 40 nautical miles, with a fidelity that is higher than 

37 http://www.osi-saf.org/?q=content/gnss-r-processing-and-nwp-assimilation 

104 

 
 
                                           
 
what is obtained from satellite. The Arctic does not have such coastal networks. On the other hand, the 
ship density is not so high in the Arctic to lead to saturation.  

AIS may reveal illegal behaviour such as illegal fishing, incursion, transhipments or smuggling. In order 
to  flag  suspicious  /  potentially  illegal  behaviour,  the  AIS  tracks  must  be  analysed.  But  malicious 
operators are known to switch off their AIS transponder. Satellite imagery, in particular SAR, may be 
used to find them anyway. However, a SAR image will show all ships, with and without AIS, innocent 
and  illegal  (down  to  a  certain  size).  Combining  the  ship  detections  from  a  SAR  image  with  AIS  is 
therefore  a  powerful  tool  to  flag  those  ships  that  are  not  visible  on  AIS  and  could  be  suspicious.  To 
properly correlate a SAR detection with an AIS position, they need to be from the same time, which is 
generally not the case as the SAR satellites and the AIS satellites will pass at different times. The ship 
tracks  therefore  need  to  be  interpolated  for  the  SAR-AIS  correlation,  which  introduces  uncertainties 
especially for erratically moving ships (fishing ships) and large time differences. Most ideal is when a 
SAR satellite also carries an AIS receiver, so that both measurements are simultaneous.  

8.4.1  European missions 

Norway flies a series of dedicated small AIS satellites under the name AISSat. It also flies the NORAIS 
series but those are on the ISS and do not cover the Arctic. 

AISSat-1  is  a  Norwegian  nanosatellite,  which  carries  an  experimental  spacecraft-based  Automatic 
Identification  System  (AIS)  sensor  in  low-Earth  orbit  as  a  means  of  tracking  maritime  assets.  The 
satellite  launched  in  2010  has  proved  to  be  a  very  good  tool  for  surveillance  in  remote  high  latitude 
areas. Coupled with ice information and vessel data the AIS-sat can be of significant value for better 
understanding  of  ice  distribution,  vessel  performance,  as  well  as  for  logistic  and  economical  studies 
(Kjerstad 2011).  

Its  primary  mission  is  to  demonstrate  the  feasibility  and  performance  of  space-based  Automatic 
Identification System (AIS) detection from low-Earth orbit as a means of tracking maritime assets, and 
the integration of space-based AIS data into a national maritime tracking information system.  

Given the great success of AISSat-1, the completion of the AISSat-2 satellite, and the need for at least 
three operational space-based AIS assets, Norway initiated the AISSat-3 project. All three AIS satellites 
working  in  tandem  will  increase  coverage,  shorten  revisit  times,  and  provide  natural  redundancy  for 
space-based AIS observation under direct control by Norway. 

NorSat-1  was  launched  in  2017  it  carries  both,  an  AIS  transponder  and  scientific  instruments.  The 
satellite allows investigating solar radiation, space weather and detecting ship traffic. A second multi-
payload satellite, NorSat-2, was launched together with NorSat-1. In addition to AIS, it carries a VHF 
Data Exchange System (VDES) transceiver. This new technology system will enable a wider seamless 
data exchange for the maritime community. Future AIS missions are planned with the launch of Norsat-
3 (launch planned in 2020) and NorSat-4 microsatellites. The primary objective of the NorSat-3 mission 
is  to  secure  the  long-term  space-based  AIS  operational  capability  of  the  Norwegian  Coastal 
Administration. The secondary objective is to demonstrate the operational capability of a ship navigation 
radar detector (NRD). 

8.4.2 

International Missions 

ORBCOMM flies 1638 “OG2” satellites, and a few older satellites, in LEO with AIS receivers and uses a 
network of 16 ground stations. They receive 28M AIS messages daily, 86% with an average latency of 
less  than  one  minute,  from  almost  300k  different  AIS  transponders.  The  primary  task  of  the  OG2 
satellites is low-latency M2M communication of short messages and not only AIS. However, only the 
southern part of the Arctic is covered (Figure 55).  

38 For all these constellation the exact number of satellites changes over time as new ones are added and old ones go off line 

105 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 55: Final expected OG1 and OG2 satellite footprints—complete global coverage. Image © ORBCOMM All Rights 
Reserved, 2016. 

An additional constellation worth mentioning is that of exactEarth, which has 60 AIS payloads in orbit, 
most of them carried on Iridium Next satellites. The constellation covers  entirely the Arctic region , as 
shown in  

Figure 56. 

Figure 56: exactEarth satellite constellation. 

Finally, Spire  has 88 satellites AIS satellites in  orbit.  Besides AIS the satellites  integrate payloads to 
carry out radio occultation measurements for weather, and ADS-B for air traffic monitoring.  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
8.4.3  Combined SAR-AIS missions 

The following SAR satellites carry an AIS payload, which provides a very good maritime surveillance 
capacity as explained above: 

  Paz (AIS payload from exactEarth) 

  Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM)  

  Future: Sentinel-1C and D 

8.5  Navigation / Precise Orbit Determination  

Another existing synergy of strong interest for the Arctic region is the use of GNSS data coming from 
Space borne receivers for a wide range of applications. All the sentinels have on board GNSS receivers. 
The  Copernicus  programme  is  releasing  Sentinel  GNSS  RINEX  files  and  the  other  ancillary  files  to 
support the scientific community involved in many geodetic applications. The possibility of delivering the 
Sentinels GNSS data will maximise the missions’ return and become a reference for GNSS processing. 

The use of precise orbit determination products in relation with the Arctic user needs are summarized 
hereafter: 

Ionosphere  characterization  through  dual-frequency  GPS  measurements  that  information  about  the 
TEC (Total Electron Content) in the ionosphere 

Gravity Field modelling thanks to the evaluation of the time-variable part of the gravity field 

Geodesy in a broad sense since the inclusion of LEO measurements into global GNSS processing may 
improve global parameters determination 

The GNSS data are available on the Sentinels GNSS Rinex Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/gnss/). 

8.6 

Internet Of Things (IoT) Missions 

8.6.1  STEAM – Ships’s Sulfur Trails Emissions Aerial Measurements 

This ESA feasibility study is intended to assess the feasibility and sustainability of a technique bringing 
into play Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) and satellite technologies. The STEAM service is 
dedicated  to  the  monitoring  of  gas  emission  (SO2,  CO2,  NOx)  in  the  ship  exhaust  using  an  RPAS 
equipped with appropriate gas sensors. The final product of the service is information on the fuel sulphur 
content for each ship which is checked and allows addressing the needs of the Maritime Authorities in 
charge of the enforcement of the ship emission regulations. 

The service uses two space assets: 

the GNSS satellites for geo-positioning the RPAS 

the Iridium satellites for real time communication. It allows collecting the gas emission records in real 
time at the ground. 

8.6.2  Argos and Kinéis (CLS/CNES)  

As mentioned in section 6.2, Argos with currently 7 satellites in operation (3 additional one by 2021) and 
Kinéis  that  will  have  25  dedicated  nanosatellites  compatible  with  Argos  will  ensure  an  intermittent 
connectivity  with  a  global  coverage.  The  future  Kinéis  constellation  will  have  a  revisit  time  below  20 
minutes  globally.  Both  satellite  missions  will  ensure  localization  and  data  collection  from  Internet  of 
Things (IoT) light and low consumption (200 mW  – 1W / transmission) terminals. Small data amount 
can be transmitted:  the channels used for sending and receiving  Argos-3  data  have now  broadband 
capabilities (4.8 Kbit/second). Higher data transmission rates in the range of up to 10 Kilobytes per day 
per beacon are foreseen with Kinéis. 

Argos/Kinéis  has  a  synergetic  capacity  in  achieving  communications  of  environmental  parameters 
through  different  type  of  device  (buoys,  weather  stations)  and  for  various  applications  (e.g  animal 
tracking, ship monitoring).  All those  applications improve the connectivity  of local Arctic communities 
and are needed for global monitoring.  

107 

 
Summary of Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and SatCom in the Arctic 

This  section  analyses  some  key  examples  through  innovative  techniques  that  use  several 
elements of the EU space programme allowing to best meet the specific challenges of the 
Arctic region. 

Dedicated weather products like the ECMWF European Arctic reanalysis products are computed 
using GNSS radio occultation data and Copernicus products to provide analysis of atmospheric states 
and provide improved surface state, snow and ice parametrisation, sea states. 

Specific  innovative  techniques  such  as  GNSS  RO  or  reflectometry  through  Signals  of 
Opportunity  are  presented  and  prove  to  be  of  valuable  interest  for  diverse  applications 
(climate monitoring, ionospheric research, altimetry, hydrology, sea ice monitoring…). AIS signals 
that can be classified as signals intelligence are essential to provide global coverage of ship traffic, 
monitoring  of  illegal  fishing,  ice  distribution.  Dedicated  nanosatellites  missions  like  the 
Norwegian AISSat-1 provides surveillance in remote high latitude areas, some others like Nor-Sat-1 
and  2  combine  AIS  and  also  embarks  new  technology  system  with  VHF  transceivers  on  board 
providing seamless data exchange. 

Looking to longer term benefits for the Arctic another synergistic example of interest mentioned is 
the  Precise  Orbit  determination  brought  by  the  GNSS  data  notably  on  board  the  Sentinels 
satellites  and  that  provide  the  Arctic  users  with  better  ionosphere  characterization,  gravity  field 
monitoring and in geodesy more broadly.  

Example of synergies at service and infrastructure level between the different EU space 
programme’s elements: Copernicus, GALILEO/EGNOS, GovSatCom and SSA. 

108 

 
 
9  Societal Impact Assessment  

9.1  Methodology 

In  this  section  the  links  between  satellite  systems  and  the  potential  benefits  on  society  have  been 
identified, with a focus in the Arctic on the synergies between the elements of the EU Space Programme 
(including EO, Communication, Navigation and Space Weather). This step is based on a conceptual 
framework  to  link  observing  systems  with  societal  benefits  which  was  designed  in  a  recent  impact 
assessment study on societal benefits of Arctic observing systems (Dobricic et al. 2018). The proposed 
framework combines two well-known methodologies: Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic.  

9.1.1  Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic  

Value  Tree  Analysis  (VTA)  was  firstly  introduced  by  the  Institute  for  Defense  Analyses-Science  and 
Technology Policy Institute (IDA-STPI) United States National Civil EO Assessments as well as for a 
needs assessment conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the 
United  States  Geological  Survey  (USGS).  The  VTA  methodology  relies  on  the  expert  domain 
knowledge. Its scope is to develop a logical description of the structure connecting policy actions with 
societal benefits. It provides a hierarchical description of the process leading to societal benefits. The 
bottom of the hierarchy contains observing systems and the top of the hierarchy wide areas of societal 
benefits that arise directly or indirectly form observing systems. Each tree consists of a hierarchically 
containing  Observing  Systems  (OS),  Key  Products,  Services  and  Outcomes  (KPSOs),  which  further 
links to Key Objectives (KO). KOs are connected to societal benefit sub-areas that form SBAs (Figure 
57).  In  January  2017  IDA-STPI  and  Sustaining  Arctic  Observing  Networks  (SAON)  organized  a 
workshop to develop an international Arctic Observations Assessment Framework, defining the major 
Social  Benefit  Areas  (SBAs)  requiring  observational  capacity  in  the  Arctic.  During  the  workshop  the 
experts defined 12 SBAs which are associated with four focus areas, Economy, Environment, People 
and Climate (IDA-STPI and SAON 2017):  

1.  Disaster Preparedness 

2.  Environmental Quality 

3.  Food Security 

4.  Fundamental Understanding of Arctic Systems 

5.  Human Health 

6. 

Infrastructure and Operations 

7.  Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Processes 

8.  Natural Resource 

9.  Resilient Communities 

10.  Sociocultural Services 

11.  Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and Processes 

12.  Weather and Climate 

109 

 
 
Figure 57: Sequential logical steps of the VTA and IL methodologies 

Each SBA contains a number of key sub-areas, which in turn contain a number of KOs and these are 
further divided into KPSOs. One observation system, such as a satellite product, can contribute to one 
or several KPSOs, and furthermore to several KOs and SBAs. Thus, any observational system can be 
evaluated and compared by integrating their potential contributions over the twelve SBAs.  

The Intervention Logic (IL) methodology  builds  a  logical  link between the  problems that needs to be 
tackled, or the objective that needs to be pursued, the underlying drivers of the problem and the action 
to address the problem and achieve the objective. The action may represent  any intervention and, in 
particular,  it  may  be  the  policy  necessary  to  address  societal  requirements.  IL  consists  of  eight 
sequential steps: Challenges, Needs, Objectives, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Results and Impacts. In 
this context inputs are the consequence of the previous requirements and they may produce activities 
and  outputs  that  further  may  contribute  to  results  and  impacts.  By  applying  IL  it  is  possible  to  plan, 
organize  and  evaluate  impacts  that  should  meet  the  initial  challenges  and  needs.  In  the  IL  context 
investments  in  OSs  correspond  to  Inputs.  The  Activities  and  Outputs  are  improved  products  using 
observations like more accurate weather forecasts, corresponding to KOs and KPSOs, while SBAs arise 
from the Results and Impacts that follow from Outputs (Figure 57). 

IL  is  a  part  of  Better  Regulation  Tools  of  the  EC  that  aims  on  ensuring  that  EC  policy  proposals, 
implementations and monitoring reach the goals at minimum cost and deliver maximum benefits to the 
society. While VTA provides a consistent approach for the evaluation of societal benefits across the 12 
SBAs, IL further includes descriptions of other steps in the policy process. The additional components 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
are represented by challenges, needs and objectives that motivate investments into observing systems. 
These steps may, for example, represent environmental pressures due to climate change in the Arctic. 
Unlike VTA which does not consider the motivation for developing a value tree, IL may logically explain 
how investments in OSs respond to these pressures by contributing to societal benefits. The present 
study  will  combine  the  two  approaches  by  using  the  existing  Arctic  Observations  Assessment 
Framework developed by the VTA methodology and linking each step in it to the most appropriate step 
in  the  IL  methodology.  In  this  way  the  study  will  build  on  the  existing  and  generally  accepted  VTA 
methodology for evaluating societal benefits arising from the Arctic observing systems, and in addition 
it will provide description of general conditions in the Arctic motivating the application of observing and 
communication systems by applying a methodology that is used by EC in a large spectrum of policies. 

9.1.2 

Information collection 

Information  on  societal  benefits  arising  from  observing  systems  in  the  Arctic  is  collected  during  a 
structured  workshop  organized  in  November  2017  in  Brussels.  The  workshop  gathered  together  18 
experts representing the major providers of environmental information and important stakeholders in the 
Arctic:  SAON,  ESA,  EU-Polarnet,  INTAROS,  Permafrost,  Mercator  Ocean,  ECMWF, WGMS, WMO, 
ICES, BlueAction, WEMC, ICE-ARC, STPI, FMI, IASC, CAFF and ISAC-CNR. Most of the organizations 
involved represent public entities or international organizations representing different stakeholders. The 
use  of  information  from  observing  systems  by  private  companies  was  assessed  implicitly  from 
representatives of international organizations and data providers. Starting from the Arctic Observations 
Assessment Framework developed by the STPI and SAON this workshop identified several case studies 
and produced value trees linking KPSOs with SBAs. Partly KPSOs are further connected with observing 
systems. In case studies that were assumed to be the most important for representing the impacts from 
observing  systems  in  the  Arctic,  the  analysis  of  relationships  between  observing  systems  and  SBAs 
included the evaluation of the strength of impacts. The desk research and structured interviews  with 
selected stakeholders provided additional information for the evaluation of links between KPSOs and 
SBAs  defining  the  relative  importance  and  strength  of  the  relationships,  and  refined  the  selection  of 
observing systems contributing to different case studies. Table 16 lists the stakeholders interviewed for 
obtaining information for linking KPSOs with SBAs in one direction, and KPSOs with Oss in the other 
direction of the value tree. The detailed list of experts together with a sample of questions is shown in 
Annex 3. 

Table 16: Additional interviews with stakeholders 

Type of stakeholder 
Fishing economist and ocean expert 
Operations manager of shipping company  
Port manager 
Manager of offshore installations 
Expert on offshore installations 
Port captain 

Managers of airports, railway stations or ports that are built on permafrost  
Researcher 

Providers of observing systems including:  
App developer, Satellite operator, Research aircraft operator 

Interviews 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

9.2  Case study selection 

In the second step, a number of case studies have been selected in order to provide a set of detailed 
analysis of societal benefits deriving from the synergies across the EU Space programme elements.  

The selected case studies met the criteria of: 

relevance and sensitivity to environmental and societal issues in the Arctic; 

capacity of producing benefits; 

coverage of a wide spectrum of different satellite systems and their synergies; 

Taken together they produce benefits in all of the twelve Arctic SBAs. 

111 

 
In the last two decades, the summer sea-ice cover dramatically decreased, with open waters extending 
to the central Arctic Ocean. Before 2000 the sea-ice extent at the end of summer was on average above 
6 millions of km2. In the last two decades it dropped to about 4 millions of km2, with the minimum sea-
ice extent recorded in summer 2012 at about 3.5 millions of km2 (Figure 58). 

Figure 58: Arctic sea ice extent. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark grey. The grey areas around the median line show 
the interquartile and interquartile ranges (25th -75th) of the data. The averages for each decade are shown in different 
colours:  1979-1990  (orange);  1991-2000  (light  green);  2001-2010  (black);  2011-2018  (light  blue).  The  year  2012,  with 
minimum summer sea–ice cover, is shown with dashed red line. (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center).  

The  changing  sea-ice  conditions  of  the  last  decades  influenced  the  life  and  activities  of  indigenous 
people and local population (Box 1). At the same time other human activities are increasing in the Arctic 
due to the reduced sea-ice cover, first of all shipping for transport, commercial, offshore installations 
and  tourism  activities.  These  activities  in  the  Arctic  also  require  a  further  development  of  safety 
measures to protect human lives and the environment. For this reason we selected a number of case 
studies/activities  which  are  highly  dependent  on  the  forecast  of  sea-ice  and  other  environmental 
conditions, global satellite navigation and communication systems. Examples of these activities are: 

Ship routing and navigation: new shipping routes through the North Polar Region will be opened by 
changing sea-ice conditions. Summer navigability will be also extended for current open-water routes. 
Satellite observations, navigation and communication services provide information improving safety and 
reducing environmental impacts of navigation. 

Search and Rescue: the success of rescue operations in the remote and harsh environments of the 
Arctic strongly depends on improved localisation, timely communication, and high quality forecasts of 
the environmental conditions (weather, ocean, sea ice).  

Offshore  installation:  observations  and  other  satellite  products  are  needed  during  exploration, 
transportation and distribution of extracted resources and decommissioning of platforms in the harsh 
Arctic environment. Services based on satellites are crucial for safe and sustainable activities. 

Oil  spills:  the  timely  detection  and  reaction  to  oil  spills  are  fundamental  to  avoid  environmental 
disasters.  The  response  time  and  mitigation  efficiency  require  a  fast  and  precise  identification  and 
localization  of  the  spill  and  a  short-term  forecast  of  atmospheric  and  marine  conditions  to  predict  its 
spread. 

In the next sections, the specific challenges and needs for ship routing and SAR activities will be briefly 
outlined. Few examples of the synergies between different space programs which contribute to these 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
activities are as well discussed. A final section describes the societal benefits of satellite space programs 
and observations in these fields. 

Box 1. Preserving the indigenous people traditional way of life 

The  traditional  life  of  indigenous  people  in  the  Arctic  is  largely  affected  by  the 
sea-ice  and  snow  cover,  which  have  rapidly  changed  in  the  last  decades.  The  new 
conditions  in  some  cases  may  be  very  far  from  what  is  known  through  the  traditional 
knowledge,  posing  a  great  problem  for  many  traditional  activities  of  indigenous  people, 
such  as  fishing,  hunting,  herding,  or  simply  moving  in  their  environment.  Routes 
traditionally known as safe are becoming less reliable, particularly in periods of ice freeze-
up  in  autumn  and  break-up  in  spring.  For  this  reason,  satellites  may  be  very  helpful  to 
complement the traditional knowledge in new environmental conditions. First of all, geo-
localization and communication is of paramount importance in such remote areas. Second, 
some  environmental  information,  such  as  sea-ice  or  snow  cover  and  thickness,  may  be 
used as well by indigenous people for their daily activities.  

Examples of services or initiatives which support indigenous people and local population in 
the Arctic through the use of satellite data are:  

—  Polar  View  Community  Ice  Service  (http://floeedge.polarview.org/):  a  downstream  service  of 
CMEMS (section 4.1.5.2) which uses near-real-time Sentinel 1 satellite imagery to monitor the ice 
conditions for communities. It is used to identify dangerous areas and to determine the safest and 
shortest routes on sea-ice (section 4.2.3).  

—  SmartICE (https://www.smartice.org/): Stationary sensors (buoys) and mobile sensors mounted on 
snowmobiles  are  combined  with  satellite  imagery  (Sentinel,  Cryosat,  and  TerraSAR-X)  and 
traditional  knowledge  to  provide  reliable  near-real-time  sea-ice  thickness  and  share  these 
informations by a smartphone application. 

—  SEEKU Connecting  Arctic voices:  developed during the Global  EO  System of Systems HACK 
2018, allows the people living in the Arctic to make use of satellite images (e.g. Sentinel), weather 
data and in-situ observations, and to share these information with others and with their Elders to 
predict 
hazards 
(https://www.earthobservations.org/me_201805_dpw.php?t=challenges). 

environmental 

possible 

All these three examples are based on the combination of three elements:  

- Traditional knowledge: local indigenous people have the longest understanding of local 
conditions  to  inform  the  sensors  deployment,  they  are  active  partner  in  all  project 
operations, 

- Ice sensing: Autonomous sensors record sea-ice thickness and in-situ sensors provide 
remote  data  collection  and  monitoring,  networked  data  are  integrated  with  satellite 
imagery, 

- Smart design: sea-ice hazard maps updated regularly and available on smart phones, 
and a social enterprise model which generates local employment and economic activity.  

113 

Example  of  a  sea-ice  service  overview  (Polar  View  Community  Ice  Service)  (Polar  View 
Earth Observation Limited 2016) 

The main outputs of these services are: 

- Up-to-date Go, Slow, No-Go colour-coded travel zones. Designations are based on 

numerous data points, on-the-ground reports, and traditional knowledge. 

- Ice thickness measurements along specific travel routes. Users can also view changes 

in ice thickness over time.  

- Daily satellite imagery of ground cover and ability to overlay coastline. Satellites from 

the EU space program are used, such as Sentinel, Cryosat, TerraSAR-X.  

-  Geographical  and  community-based  interest  markers.  These  may  include 
landscape or ice features representing potential hazards, presence of cracks in the ice, 
location of seal holes, and base camp locations. 

114 

 
 
Examples of a SmartICE travel map. (Source: SmartICE) 

These new applications lead to a series of positive impacts for local communities and all 
Arctic stakeholders. Optimisation of operations on sea ice (minimize travel time, fuel costs, 
equipment wear; maximise safety) allows for informed decision-making across a wide area. 
Emergency rescue services can be optimised increasing public safety. In addition app like 
Polar  View,  SmartICE  and  SEEKU,  as  a  community  activity,  safeguards  traditional 
livelihoods,  uses  and  knowledge  of  sea  ice,  and  expands  local  employment  and  training 
opportunities.  

These  apps  were  linked  by  experts  to  5  SBAs:  Enhanced  infrastructure  and  operations; 
Fundamental  understanding  of  Arctic  systems;  Increased  disaster  preparedness; 
Monitoring  of  impacts  on  environmental  quality;  Sociocultural  Services;  and  Resilient 
communities  (Dobricic  et  al.  2018).  This  challenge  addresses  as  well  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, for example 
Quality Education (SDG4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11), Climate Action 
(SDG13).     

9.3  Ship routing and navigation 

The declining sea-ice is opening new navigation routes through the Arctic Ocean due to extended open 
water  areas  and  summer  navigability.  Figure  59  (left  panel)  shows  the  possible  routes  available  for 
navigation in the recent years. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) along the Russian coasts today is the 
main navigation route in the Arctic and mostly used to connect ports within the Arctic. Between 2001 
and 2018 there were 280 transits (navigation between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans) along the 
NSR,  mostly  by  tankers  and  cargo  vessels  (https://arctic-lio.com/category/statistics/).  The  navigation 
along the Alaskan and Canadian coastlines, the Northwest Passage (NWP), is generally closed by sea-
ice and only in the last  years, after 2008, one  or two tankers or cargo vessels per  year could transit 
(Eguiluz et al. 2016). In the near future, before 2030, these routes might be more accessible for different 
types of vessels, as shown in Figure 59 for future sea-ice conditions simulated by an ensemble of global 
models  under  different  climate  conditions  (RCP2.6:  very  low  greenhouse  gas  concentration  levels; 
RCP8.5: very high greenhouse gas concentration levels. See details at https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb). 
Routes which are navigable in September from open water vessels (OW) are shown in cyan, while pink 
lines represent routes available for Polar Class 6 vessels (PC6: Summer/autumn operation in medium 
first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusion); line weights indicate the number of transits using the 
same  route  (Melia,  Haines,  and  Hawkins  2016).  In  the  coming  decade,  according  to  the  model 
simulations, the potential for trans-Arctic navigation  is 90% for PC6  vessels  and above  30% for OW 
vessels (Figure 59, central and right panels). This new routes may significantly  reduce the distances 

115 

 
 
between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans.  The  navigation  time  along  the  NSR,  for  example  between 
Rotterdam and Yokohama, could drop to about 18 days compared to 30 days needed to pass from the 
Suez Canal. Along the NWP about 21 days are needed to connect New York and Yokohama, compared 
to 25 days needed through the Panama Canal. 

Figure 59, left panel: Hypothetical open water vessel routes sailing through the September sea ice thickness field for 
eight recent years from the Pan‐Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) reanalysis (Zhang and 
Rothrock 2003). In the small box the main Arctic transit options are shown. Central and right panels: Fastest available 
September trans‐Arctic routes from multimodel projections. Routes for RCP2.6 (a) and RCP8.5 (b) for the period 2015-
2030 (15 consecutive Septembers, from five GCMs each with three ensemble members, equating to 225 simulations per 
panel). Source: Melia et al. 2016. 

Despite  the  declining  sea-ice  may  open  new  shipping  routes,  the  navigation  in  the  Arctic  is  still 
challenging and the economic viability of the Arctic routes is not yet achieved for different reasons. The 
main challenges can be summarized in the following list: 

Environmental conditions and impact: the harsh weather conditions, the rather short navigation season 
and the difficulties in sea-ice forecasting make navigation difficult and shipping schedules more variable. 
At the same time the impact of new shipping routes in the Arctic will further increase atmospheric and 
marine pollution, with further possible feedbacks on the sea ice decline;   

High  costs:  ship  construction  (ice  reinforced  vessels  and  specialized  equipment)  and  operation 
(including use of icebreakers to clear the lanes from ice for commercial shipping) are more expensive 
in the Arctic; 

Infrastructure  gap:  major  improvements  to  the  current  infrastructures  are  needed,  in  the  Arctic  the 
number of deep water ports able to support, provide repair and refuelling large commercial vessels is 
limited; 

Safety:  increased  marine  activities  will  require  disaster  preparedness,  both  in  terms  of  Search  and 
Rescue and protection of the fragile Arctic environment from pollution and irreversible damages.   

Data from different satellite programs are used to tackle the above-mentioned challenges and to achieve 
a wide range of objectives, related to ship management, organise and plan existing and future navigation 
routes  under  changing  ice  conditions,  and  improve  weather  forecasts  used  by  shipping  industry. 
Examples of specific objectives are: 

Improve maritime traffic supervision and tracking; Improve direction of individual ship journeys;  

Reduce sailing distance through the Arctic; 

Ensure continued operation of transportation and shipping activities; 

Provide shipping sector-specific weather predictions for economic productivity;  

Ensure safe and secure infrastructure design and operations; 

Manage disturbances to marine and coastal ecosystems. 

Improve understanding of climate as a driver of changing environmental quality; 

116 

 
 
 
Improve understanding, prediction, and detection of weather events in the Arctic and their effects on 
shipping; 

Improve linkages between weather and climate observations across timescales to reduce uncertainty in 
weather forecast and climate modelling prediction; 

Support effective response, planning, mitigation, and  resource allocation based  on changing climatic 
conditions in the Arctic. 

A  large  number  of  services  needed  for  different  commercial  shipping  activities  in  the  Arctic  must  be 
developed to achieve the objectives mentioned above. Oceanographic, meteorological and geophysical 
data are needed for a large variety of shipping activities, such as for the fishery industry, to cargo and 
cruise ships and scientific research vessels. Examples of KPSOs are: 

Improved  maps  of  ocean  floor:  extensive  hydrographic  surveys  to  determine  channel  depths  and 
submarine hazards; 

Real-time reports, short term forecasts and longer term predictions of ice, weather and sea conditions: 
Forecast and real time reports are needed to guide individual journeys. Important information is Sea-ice 
cover and thickness, tracking free floating ice and icebergs, intensity and direction of winds and waves. 
Long-term projections of ice conditions are needed for designating Arctic shipping routes.  

Maps and real-time monitoring ocean currents: can be an obstacle to shipping or of great benefit, saving 
fuel and time if known correctly. 

Navigation charts: Increased melting of ice enhances the inadequacy of nautical charts used for route 
planning. This is a significant issue, namely in the Arctic, where emergency response infrastructure is 
lacking in some remote areas. 

Communication  assistance:  Analogue  voice  and  data  transmission,  enabled  by  satellite  digital 
communication systems, needs to reach all regions in the Arctic. 

Observations are crucial for weather and sea-ice forecast. Many data are provided by instruments on 
satellites  for  EO,  but  many  other  in-situ  observation  systems  provide  important  data  relying  on  geo-
positioning and communication satellites. Examples of satellites needed to provide services in the Arctic 
are listed below:    

  EO satellites : AISSat-1, Sentinel 1, Sentinel 3, TerraSAR-X, TanDEM-X, CryoSat, SMOS 

  GNSS Radio Occultation receiver on low-Earth-orbiting satellites (LEO) 

  GNSS  for  geo-positioning  (GPS  and  Galileo)  and  communication  satellites  (Iridium)  for  data 
transfer are needed by a wide range of in-situ observations, in particular ice, moored and drifting 
buoys (e.g. ARGO floats) and gliders.   

A good example of existing synergies between different satellite programs elements is the GNSS Radio 
Occultation (RO). This technique makes use of existing transmitted GNSS signals originally designed 
for PNT (Positioning, Navigation and Timing) applications, (see navigation inventory in section  5), but 
can benefit as well ship routing by improving short term weather forecast. When a low-Earth-orbiting 
(LEO) satellite carrying a RO receiver is occulted behind the Earth relative to a global navigation satellite 
system, the radio waves that it receives from the navigation satellite are slowed and refracted by Earth’s 
atmosphere. The Doppler shift of radio waves can be measured accurately providing information on the 
bending  angle  and  refractivity  as  a  function  of  height  in  the  stratosphere  and  troposphere.  RO 
observations are characterized by the high accuracy and, unlike some other satellite observations, are 
not  biased.  By  applying  a  mathematical  operator  linking  changes  of  atmospheric  temperature  and 
humidity to modifications of the bending angle and refractivity they may be used to improve estimates 
of tropospheric temperature and humidity profiles and thus ameliorate weather prediction and climate 
monitoring.  Starting  from  the  first  demonstration  of  their  use  in  an  operational  numerical  weather 
prediction centre (Poli et al. 2010), several studies estimated their impact on weather forecast showing 
their positive impact particularly in the upper troposphere (Cardinali 2009; Cardinali and Healy 2014; 
Bormann, Lawrence, and Farnan 2019). A relatively small number of RO observations with respect to 
the  number  of  some  other  satellite  observations,  like  radiances,  significantly  contribute  to  direct 
estimates  of  temperature  and  other  tropospheric  parameters  in  short  and  medium  term  weather 
forecasts (Poli et al. 2010; Cardinali and Healy 2014; Bormann et al. 2019). Those RO observations by 
reducing biases from other observations may contribute to the better use of a large number of satellite 

117 

observations (Bormann et al. 2019). Despite the relatively small number of RO observations, they also 
contribute to improve the forecast performance by 3-4% (Figure 60).    

Figure  60 Estimates  of  weighted  impact  of  observing  systems  on  the  short  term weather  forecast  at  the  ECMWF in 
August 2019. RO observations (“GPSRO” in the figure) contribute by 3-4% to the Forecast Sensitivity to Observations 
Impact (FSOI).  

The impact of RO observations is mainly concentrated in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere 
(Cardinali and Healy 2014; Bormann et al. 2019) and, therefore, they may mostly implicitly improve the 
prediction of near-surface atmospheric parameters. During many important weather events in the Artic, 
like  polar  lows  or  sudden  stratospheric  warming,  perturbations  of  wind,  pressure,  temperature  and 
humidity in the lower troposphere may be strongly correlated with perturbations in the upper troposphere 
and  lower  stratosphere.  In  these  cases  RO  observations  might  contribute  to  a  number  of  societal 
benefits  in  the  Arctic.  In  particular,  they  could  contribute  to  improved  forecasts  of  near-surface 
temperatures and winds that may further improve KPSOs related to the sea-ice social benefit domain. 
They may improve short and medium term sea-ice cover forecasts and in this way contribute to benefits 
related to search and rescue, navigation in the Arctic, preservation of traditional human activities over 
sea-ice and offshore platforms.  

A second example is the use of the ESA Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission to measure 
sea-ice. Even if not originally planned, it turned out that the radiometer carried by SMOS could be used 
also to complement the radio altimeter data from CryoSat to have a better measure of sea-ice thickness. 
While CryoSat is more accurate for thicker ice, SMOS data are more accurate for ice thickness below 
one meter. The combination of these two products helped to improve the sea-ice forecasts, which is 
crucial  for  marine  traffic  operators  to  determine  the  safest  and  most  economic  routes.  SMOS  and 
CryoSat  data  were  used  to  reconstruct  the  sea-ice  cover  and  thickness  since  2010  (Figure  61), 
contributing to scientific studies on understanding the sea-ice annual variability and climate change. 

118 

 
 
Figure 61: Sea-ice thickness estimated from the SMOS mission observations. Left panel shows the November 2012 sea-
ice cover and thickness. The right panel shows changes in sea-ice thickness during November between 2010 and 2016. 
(Source: http://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/SMOS/Satellite_cousins_have_ice_covered) 

9.4  Search and Rescue 

Rapid changes have occurred in the Arctic during the last decades. Environmental conditions, such as 
the sea ice cover and thickness and weather conditions are more and more difficult to forecast. At the 
same  time  the  activity  levels  of  human  activities,  such  as  shipping,  tourism,  research,  mining  and 
fisheries  industries,  will  increase  in  the  Arctic  as  climate  change  and  new  technology  offer  more 
opportunities for vessel traffic in the region and access to remote areas. The possibilities of incidents in 
the maritime/land Arctic will increase alongside this developments. These scenarios can range from ship 
groundings or a ship trapped in ice to a drill ship incident or ship collisions.  

The  main  challenges  for  SAR  operations  in  the  Arctic  are  due  to  the  long  distances,  the  extreme 
environmental conditions, and the lack of infrastructures. All these factors create long response time for 
SAR  operators,  logistically  complicate  and  expensive  operations.  The  International  Maritime 
Organization  (IMO)  introduced  in  2017  the  Polar  Code  which  covers  the  full  range  of  design, 
construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue and environmental protection matters 
two  poles 
relevant 
in 
(http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx). 
cold 
temperatures  survival  times  are  shorten,  the  ability  to  provide  medical  care  is  complicated  and 
equipment may not work and in this context telemedicine may provide a very useful contribution given 
the adequate technical instruments including satellite services (Walderhaug et al. 2015). 

inhospitable  waters  surrounding 

to  ships  operating 

the 
extreme 

the 

In 

Sea ice is a high risk factor in the Arctic during summer and preventing maritime travels in the winter. 
While in the last decades we saw decreasing summer sea ice coverage and widening of the operating 
window for marine operations in the summertime, the risk of sea ice is not eliminated from the operating 
environment.  In some cases the risk is  larger due to breaking up  larger blocks of multi-year ice and 
decreased predictability of sea ice conditions year-to-year. Icebreaking capability may be required to 
rescue ships that become stuck in the ice, and escort those trying to make passage through the ice, but 
in some cases ships will be required to find safe tracks without icebreaker assistance.  

There are challenges from joint operations, e.g. carried out in the context of Arctic Council activities. In 
addition to the need for better operational cooperation, more joint training and exercises, lessons learnt 
from joint exercises point to poor communication and lack of connections in the Arctic as key challenges 
for  search  and  rescue  operations.  Communication  between  vessels,  rescue  units  and  land  is  key  to 
good situational awareness. However, connections, both satellite and radio, are very limited in the Arctic 
region  (with  cell  phone  networks  being  almost  non-existent,  radio  towers  rare,  and  communications 

119 

 
 
satellites often below the horizon). In this context the return link service available from the Galileo system 
provides  an  acknowledgment  to  people  in  distress.  In  the  return  link  evolution  there  will  be  also  a 
messaging service. A user in distress could provide information relative to the sea state, temperature, 
winds and other environmental conditions to facilitate SAR operations.    

As contact is often lost for fleets operating further offshore, SAR operations themselves are very difficult 
to manage. At the same time, SAR operations require a constant transfer of real-time data to those who 
need  it  in  an  emergency.  Thus,  a  loss  of  connection  may  result  in  additional  risks  for  crews  and 
passengers  of  ships  affected  by  accidents.  To  overcome  these  communications  challenges,  human 
operators need to rely on more advanced satellite systems with polar coverage.  

The  main  objectives  of  the  observing,  geo-localisation  and  communication  systems  used  in  SAR 
operations are to contribute to activities related to disaster preparedness: 

Deploy emergency responder personnel and equipment in an optimal manner pre- and post-disaster; 

Conduct risk assessments to inform disaster preparedness activities; 

Develop and execute plans and procedures for disaster prevention; 

Improve future disaster preparedness activities; 

Support disaster aid planning and deployment; 

Develop  and  maintain  analytical  capabilities  for  hazard  identification,  disaster  prediction  and  future 
disaster preparedness activities; 

Reduce loss of life and injury and damage to property due to routine or high-impact weather events. 

In a SAR operation satellite observations are needed to provide real-time information on environmental 
parameters such as:  

weather condition, velocity fields and derived convergence/divergence fields  

current state of the wind, currents or waves 

ice thickness, ice volume fluxes  

vertical heat fluxes and brine rejection from the freezing of ice  

glaciers or icebergs in the area  

For  several  of  these  observed  variables,  satellite-derived  information,  in  particular  from  synthetic 
aperture  radar  (SAR)  data,  is  needed  at  regular  intervals.  SAR  ice  images  can  also  provide  more 
accurate input data as well as validation data for weather and ice forecasting models.  The Sentinel 1 
satellite, for example, provides all-weather day-and-night measurements of sea ice. In addition, satellites 
are also used to detect Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), which are automatic tracking systems 
used on ships and vessel traffic services. These are very important in a SAR operation for establishing 
the location of particular vessel that could be in need. This information is needed to generate different 
products or services (KPSO): 

Accurate navigation charts;  

Information on meteorological and oceanographic conditions;  

Information on infrastructure and other vessels in the area; 

Disaster-relevant environmental intelligence, such as:  

Iceberg maps;  

Surface current or drift maps; 

GNSS positioning data of vessels; 

Sea ice maps; 

(Local) tidal maps given the extreme tide variations in the Arctic; 

Risk assessments to inform disaster preparedness activities; 

Some of the satellite systems used for the production of KPSO in SAR activities is listed below:  

EO: TerraSAR-X[1], Sentinel 1 [2],[3], NovaSAR-S, CryoSat; 

120 

Galileo  SAR  service:  5  SAR/GAL  reference  beacons  (REFBE),  MEOSAR  instruments,  Galileo  SAR 
transponders on-board the Galileo satellites (23 operational), 3 European MEOLUT ground stations.    

It is challenging to estimate the scale of SAR operations in the Arctic region, as there are no consolidated 
statistics on these activities. Available data focus on SAR operations for shipping and show a steady 
increase over the years (+22% from one decade to the other), in line with the overall increase in vessels 
transiting  the  Arctic.39  The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  SAR  operations  reported  in  the 
decades 1995-2004 (Brigham et al. 2009) and 2005-2014 (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty 2015). 

Table 17: Number of SAR operations for two decades, 1995-2004 and 2005-2014, and grouped by different causes. 

Decade 1995-2004 

Decade 2005-2014 

Collision 

Damage to vessel 

Fire/explosion 

Grounded 

Machinery 
damage/failure 

Miscellaneous 

N/A 

54 

25 

68 

71 

10 

Machinery 
damage/failure 

Wrecked/stranded 

Miscellaneous 

Fire/explosion 

Collision 

Contact 
harbour wall) 

(e.g. 

Hull damage 

Foundered 

135 

90 

32 

25 

25 

20 

19 

11 

Total 

271 

Total 

347 

39 Data presented for the two decades are taken from different sources. Therefore the comparability (also of the categories used) 

is limited. It is possible that the datasets are incomplete.  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure  62:  Borders  of  the  Search  and  Rescue  region  of  the  North  Joint  Rescue  Co-ordination  Centres  (JRCC  North 
Norway), located in Bodø. Right top panel shows the total number of alerts received by the North-JRCC for every month 
after  2012,  for  sea, land  and  air  emergencies.  Right  bottom  panel  shows  the  number  of  distress  signals  handled  by 
Cospas/Sarsat NMCC for sea (EPIRB), land (PLB), and Air (ELT). 

More recent data are available from the Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres (JRCC’s) in Norway, which 
co-ordinate the SAR operations for the Norwegian Search and Rescue region. The North JRCC, located 
in Bodø, is responsible for coordinating the conduct of search and rescue operations for latitudes above 
65 degrees north. Figure 62 shows the total number of alerts which were notified to the North JRCC in 
last  years  for  sea/land/air  emergencies.  The  alarms  from  the  Emergency  Position  Indicating  Radio 
Beacons  (EPIRBS)  will  be  handled  by  Cospas/Sarsat  NMCC  (Norwegian  Mission  Control  Center)  at 
JRCC in Bodø.  

In the case of an alert (see example in Box 2), the JRCC establishes and maintains direct communication 
with the ship reporting to be in need of assistance, via radio, INMARSAT. The on-scene coordinator or 
other ships on scene should provide JRCC with on scene weather (wind, seastate, sea-current, visibility 
and temperature) and any information on search targets and time and position of incident. 

122 

 
 
Box 2. Northguider (Hinlopen Strait, Svalbard 2018-2019) 

(Image:http://icepeople.net/2019/07/20/even-more-shipwrecked-trawler-stranded-in-
north-svalbard-since-december-suffers-major-damage-august-removal-planned/) 

The  Northguider  vessel  was  fishing  North  of  the  Svalbard  archipelago  on  the  28th  of 
December  2018,  when  it  grounded  in  Hinlopen  Strait  in  the  nature  reserve  of  the 
Nordaustlandet, 80 degrees North. The rescue operation was managed by the Joint Rescue 
Coordination Centre in Bodø, Northern Norway, with atmospheric temperatures below -20 
°C and strong winds. All the 14 crew members were rescued by helicopter and none were 
injured. Despite its remote location, fishing is common in the Hinlopen Strait. “The initial 
response to the grounding was later described as being at the far limit of what was possible, 
however,  and  has  resulted  in  questions  being  asked  about  whether  winter  search-and-
rescue capacity near Svalbard is adequate, particularly given the projected increase in the 
number of ships sailing in the area”. After the SAR operation the environmental emergency 
needed to be assessed in order to avoid an oil spill of the 300 tonnes of diesel fuel contained 
in the Northguider. Only in January 2019 it was possible to remove the fuel using three rib 
boats and 30 plastic tanks holding 1,000 litres each. 160 trips between the Coast Guard 
vessel  and  the  ‘Northguider’  were  needed  for  this  operation.  The  ship  could  be  finally 
removed only in August 2019 when the region is generally free from sea-ice and weather 
is stable providing better working conditions than at other times of the year. Removing the 
ship during winter was  too challenging, due to unpredictable weather  and temperatures 
below -40 °C. In such conditions the operation was unsafe for those taking part, and could 
result in the ship sinking while it was being towed. Also during spring and early summer 
the towing operation could disturb seabirds that nest in the area. 

: 

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/12/drama-arctic-waters-
Source 
trawler-runs-aground-svalbard ;  https://www.arctictoday.com/the-mission-to-salvage-a-
stranded-svalbard-fishing-vessel-is-on-hold-until-august/ ; 
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/svalbard-preparing-extreme-pumping-operation-using-small-boats  

123 

 
 
 
 
9.5  Societal benefits 

During a specialist workshop (Gueel Sans Ariadna 2018) the possible links between observing systems 
(including EO satellites) and societal benefits associated to ship routing, SAR operations, as  well as 
other activities which relies on precise sea-ice and weather forecast in the Arctic (such as oil spills and 
offshore  installations)  were  identified  by  experts  of  observing  systems  in  the  Arctic.  Additional 
information was gathered through desk research and interviews to stakeholders (section 9.1.2) 

For the analysis of the sea-ice topic the following KPSO’s were selected: 

Figure 63: Short description of KPSO associated to sea-ice conditions. The impact on the value tree was assessed by 
experts  in  terms  of  number  of  SBA  and  SBA  sub-areas,  and  key  objectives  for  each  KPSO.  (Source:  EVERIS,2018; 
Dobricic et al., 2018). 

The experts were asked to find the links between the sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs and to assign a 
qualitative  score,  (low,  medium  and  high)  to  each  link  according  to  the  extent  to  which  the  KPSO 
contributes  to  the  specific  KO.  Figure  63  summarizes  the  total  number  of  SBAs,  sub  areas,  key 
objectives and observing systems that could be associated by the experts to the four KPSOs related to 
sea-ice for ship routing, oil spill, offshore installation and sea rescue. 

 A  total  number  of  92 key  objectives  were  connected  to  19  SBA  sub-areas  and  distributed  among  8 
different SBAs as follow: 

Disaster preparedness. 49 key objectives in all 5 SBA sub-areas: 

8 in Disaster Mitigation  

18 in Disaster Protection and Prevention 

8 in Disaster Recovery 

124 

 
 
 
9 in Hazard Identification and Disaster Prediction 

6 Disaster Response   

Environmental Quality. 7 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 

3 in Drivers of Environmental Impacts 

4 in Environmental Impacts 

Food security. 2 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 

1 in Accessible, Available, and Sustainable Food 

1 in Exchange of Food 

Human health. 1 key objective in 1 SBA sub-area: 

1 in Public Health 

Infrastructures and operations. 9 key objectives in 3 SBA-sub-areas: 

2 in Planning of Infrastructure 

2 in Development of Infrastructure 

5 in Operations and Maintenance of Infrastructure 

Marine and coastal ecosystems and processes. 5 key objectives in 1 SBA sub-area: 

5 in Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Biodiversity 

Natural resources. 9 key objectives in 3 SBA sub-areas: 

2 in Natural Resource Exploration and Assessment  

6 in in Natural Resource Development and Exploitation 

1 in Natural Resource Decommissioning and Reclamation 

Weather and climate. 10 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 

2 in Weather Effects on Economic Productivity 

8 in Weather Effects on Protection of Lives and Property 

125 

Disaster
Preparedn
ess

Environme
ntal Quality

Food
Security

Human
Health

Infrastructu
re and
Operations

Low
Medium
High

12
21
16

0
3
4

0
0
2

0
0
1

1
3
5

Marine and
Coastal
Ecosystem
s and
Processes
0
0
5

Natural
Resource

Weather
and
Climate

0
1
8

0
0
10

Figure 64 Aggregate connections between all sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: Everis 2018; Dobricic et al. 2018). 

Each KPSO contributes to a different set of SBAs (Figure 63). The aggregate connections between all 
sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs used a matrix available in the study Everis 2018.  “Ship routing” has the 
strongest  connection  with  the  “Disaster  Preparedness”,  “Natural  Resources”,  and  “Weather  and 
Climate” (Figure 65). For “Search and Rescue”, the most connected KOs with high and medium intensity 
are “Disaster Preparedness” with five and seven Kos (Figure 66). In the case of the KPSO “Oil spill” 
(Figure  67),  the  most  strongly  associated  SBAs  are  “Disaster  Preparedness”  and  “Environmental 
Quality”. Lastly, the “Offshore installations” are characterized by five and four high intensity links with 
“Infrastructure and Operations” and “Natural Resource” KOs and three high intensity links with “Disaster 
Preparedness” and “Weather and Climate” Kos (Figure 68). 

126 

 
 
 
Ship routing

Disaster
Preparedness

Environmental
Quality

Food Security

Low
Medium
High

6
2
3

0
1
1

0
0
2

Marine and
Coastal
Ecosystems
and Processes
0
0
2

Natural
Resource

Weather and
Climate

0
0
4

0
0
3

High Medium Low

Figure 65: Connections between “Ship routing” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018). 

Search and  Rescue

Low
Medium
High

Disaster Preparedness
0
7
5

Weather and Climate
0
0
2

High Medium Low

Figure  66:  Connections  between  “Search  and  Rescue”  KPSOs  and  the SBAs  (Source: EVERIS  2018,  Dobricic  et  al., 
2018).  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Oil spill

Disaster
Preparedness

Environmental
Quality

Human Health

Low
Medium
High

0
8
5

0
1
2

0
0
1

High Medium Low

Marine and
Coastal
Ecosystems and
Processes
0
0
1

Weather and
Climate

0
0
2

Figure 67: Connections between “Oil spill” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018). 

Offshore installations

Disaster
Preparedness

Environmental
Quality

Infrastructure
and
Operations

Low
Medium
High

6
4
3

0
1
1

1
3
5

Marine and
Coastal
Ecosystems
and
Processes
0
0
2

Natural
Resource

Weather and
Climate

0
1
4

0
0
3

High Medium Low

Figure 68: Connections between “Offshore installations” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 
2018). 

Quantifiable  benefits  were  estimated  in  economic  terms  for  the  “Sea-ice”  KPSOs  case  studies  in  a 
conservative way by Dobricic et al. 2018. Only cost savings, for example in terms of fuel consumption, 
were considered. Observations were conservatively assumed to be responsible for 15-20% of the cost 
savings (Deloitte 2018) calculated for three scenarios for the evolution of commercial traffic in the Arctic 
assuming variously a 50% lower (conservative), current (central) and 25% faster (speculative) growth 
rates  for  Arctic  shipping.  Total  annual  savings  by  2028  are  of  the  order  of  920  –  1168  MEUR, 
consequently the benefits form observations are between 138 and 234 MEUR/yr by 2028 (Dobricic et 

128 

 
 
 
 
al. 2018). For “Search and Rescue” KPSO, in a conservative scenario (no efficiency gain from better 
observations) costs are expected to increase in line with the increase  in human activity, i.e. by about 
16%. A central (limited efficiency gain) and speculative (higher efficiency gain) scenarios are expected 
to lead to a 5.3% and 17.6% decrease in the costs of SAR operations compared to the conservative 
scenario.  On  this  basis,  the  efficiency  gain  from  observing  systems  in  SAR  operations  may  reduce 
annual costs up to the EUR 0.5-1 million range in the Arctic (Dobricic et al. 2018; Deloitte 2018). The 
efficiency of the oil spill response may improve with better observations creating savings measurable in 
economic  terms.  Dobricic  et  al.  2018  estimated  the  savings  due  to  improved  efficiency  of  oil  spill 
response  activities  taking  as  a  reference  the  Exxon  Valdez  incident  occurred  in  Alaska  in  1989. 
Assuming an accident like Exxon Valdez every 10 years, the savings by improving the cleaning activities 
through better observations are in the range of 1 to 4 MEUR annually. Some important economic social 
benefits were not quantified, such as environmental quality, food security and human health in oil spill, 
SAR and offshore installation activities. 

129 

  
10  Conclusions 

The rapid environmental changes occurring in the Arctic are accompanied by an increasing presence of 
human  activities  and  interests  in  the  region.  The  needs  of  indigenous  people,  local  population  and 
economic actors in the Arctic requires more and more the combined use of different satellite products 
to communicate, to move with navigation support, and to monitor and forecast environmental conditions. 

It  is  in  this  context  that  this  study  identifies  the  specific  user  needs  and  the  challenges  of  the  Arctic 
region, and the available and foreseen Space assets with a focus on the European capacities.  

Arctic Space solutions were sought through the four elements of the European Space programme – EO, 
European  Global  Navigation  Satellite  Systems  (EGNSS),  Satellite  Communications  and  Space 
Situational Awareness – inventorying current and future capabilities (10 year’s timeframe). 

The evaluation of the pertinence of each space asset was mapped according to the challenges identified 
using a cross-cutting approach. The study led to the identification of gaps in particular related to some 
products and existing services, with possible solution to improve them. 

Regarding Copernicus for safe navigation in the Arctic, the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring 
Service (CMEMS) brings a clear benefit by delivering an array of sea ice products (including sea ice 
concentration,  sea  ice  edge,  sea  ice  type,  sea  ice  thickness  and  sea  ice  drift,  as  well  as  iceberg 
concentration). However, operational users, both civilian and military, are still in need of more detailed 
and more timely provision of sea ice, bathymetry and iceberg information to adequately evaluate risk.  

Improved  service  product  portfolios  and  new  products  (e.g.  redistribution  of  radar  altimetry  sea  ice 
thickness)  would  be  incorporated  in  next  generation  Copernicus  missions,  expected  to  improve  safe 
operations and navigation in the maritime sector, and better covering of research needs. However, a 
clear  gap  remains  between  model-based  forecast  systems  and  polar  end-users  needs  in  terms  of 
resolution.  Continuous 
forecast  systems, 
observations and appropriate data assimilation techniques are required to generate more user-relevant 
services.  

the  development  of  high-resolution 

investments 

in 

EGNSSs already cover the Arctic region; in particular, the Galileo Open Service (OS) is available for 
non-safety  critical  purposes  for  positioning,  navigation  and  timing  synchronization  under  all  weather 
conditions. In addition, the Galileo Search and Rescue (SaR) service covers the Arctic up to 85° North 
latitude. The service brings a net benefit in reducing significantly the time needed for localization of users 
in distress. A fundamental element of the Galileo SaR service is the return link feature (available since 
January 2020). This unique capability confirms the user that the distress message has been received.  

The augmentation system EGNOS has a gap in its coverage of the Arctic. This gap is due to the GEO 
orbit of the EGNOS satellites, which makes them visible only up to 72° North (or lower in mountainous 
terrain). Although EGNOS only partially covers the Arctic, EGNOS services (OS and SoL) are already 
exploited in the area. EGNOS SoL service is particularly useful in aviation where the integrity information 
is fundamental. The study found that a growing number of airports implement EGNOS-based landing 
procedures.  An  alternative  solution  to  the  integrity  information  provided  by  EGNOS  is  the  future 
Advanced  Receiver  Autonomous  Integrity  Monitoring  (ARAIM)  service,  which  will  provide  improved 
integrity, in particular for aviation and maritime sectors. The service will have a global coverage,  also 
above 72°N, and horizontal ARAIM will be available by 2025. 

An  additional  future  capability  of  Galileo  that  is  expected  to  be  very  valuable  to  the  Arctic  is  the 
Emergency  Warning  Service,  which  will  provide  warnings  to  the  population  in  case  of  emergencies 
related to events such as fire, floods, and storms. The service is designed to target the public and in 
some cases the emergency authorities.  

Regarding  the  Satellite  Communications  (SatCom)  component,  the  key  issue  is  that  most 
communications  satellites  are  GEO,  but  only  non-GEO  satellites  are  able  to  cover  the  Arctic  region. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Currently  only  Iridium  Next  (US-based  Company)  operating  on  MEO  orbits  covers  the  Arctic  region 
entirely. Governmental Systems serve primarily for MilSatCom, although some of them have a dual-use 
payload which would allow their usage for GovSatCom. However, all these governmental systems also 
employ GEO orbits, therefore their usage for northernmost regions is limited.  

Future potential systems for GovSatCom have been investigated: HEO satellites – Global Xpress (by 
Inmarsat);  LEO  satellite  mega  constellations  –  OneWeb,  Starlink  and  Telesat  LEO.  The  new  GX 
payloads will provide continuous, assured communications to tactical and strategic government users 
operating in the Arctic region. The satellite mega constellations for broadband internet are starting to 
put their first satellites in orbit and are testing the first connections to users. 

Following this in-depth review of the different Space element programmes, it was possible to identify a 
number of synergies. Remote sensing techniques can use GNSS signals as a signal of opportunity to 
retrieve  geophysical  parameters:  GNSS  radio  occultation  for  atmosphere  and  climate  applications; 
GNSS-reflectometry to derive sea ice extent or snow depth; and signal delays from GNSS payloads on 
board satellites to derive ionospheric parameters.  

The synergies between EO, GNSS and SatCom are very strong for maritime applications including safe 
navigation and surveillance. Space-borne Automatic Identification System (AIS) receivers – that can be 
seen as a kind of SatCom system – are used to track reporting ships, while imaging satellites can detect 
non-reporting ships and map ice conditions; and the results can be transmitted to ship-board users in 
near-real-time with SatCom. Easiness for connecting, visualizing, analysing satellite data without pre-
processing are also more needed. The Internet Of Things (IoT) applications are growing and represent 
a  nice  example  of  synergy  between  GNSS,  SatCom  and  EO  bringing  new  services  with  improved 
connectivity to the indigenous Arctic populations.  

Under  the SSA component, Space  weather  is monitored to  warn against  dangerous events that can 
impact electronics in space and on earth. But space weather also influences the ionosphere, leading to 
GNSS  inaccuracies  or  outages,  so  we  see  a  clear  synergy  in  the  support  of  GNSS  by  the  SSA 
component.  

An analysis based on expert opinions was conducted for a few case studies related to activities which 
depend  on  sea-ice  forecast  (ship  routing,  SaR,  offshore  installation  and  oil  spills).  Communication, 
positioning and EO satellites and their synergies contribute to the definition of key products and services 
concerning sea-ice in the Arctic which could be linked to 92 key objectives in 8 different societal benefit 
areas.   

The evaluation of the benefits for Arctic people and operators was based on methodologies developed 
for policy evaluation such as Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic. In particular, this demonstrates 
that investments in Arctic observing systems are fully justified by economic returns, even for the limited 
number  of  economic  activities  evaluated  in  the  study.  The  study  focused  mainly  on  local-to-regional 
benefits but the proposed analytical framework can be further developed to account for societal benefits 
of Arctic observing systems ranging from local to global scales. 

To  reinforce  the  efficiency  of  existing  and  future  capabilities  for  the  Arctic  users  and  to  improve 
connectivity, the exploitation of various synergies like those illustrated in this report are highly desirable 
at programmatic levels, particularly those between Galileo and Copernicus. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11  Main recommendations 

This section presents some policy recommendations based on the main findings of the study. The policy 
options have been deduced from the feedback and expertise gathered from a thorough literature review, 
experts feedback from specialist meetings on GNSS  and space technologies (e.g. GNSS-R meeting 
2019, EU Space week 2019), science and policy workshop organized by IDA-STPI and SAON (IDA-
STPI and SAON 2017) and from the Arctic Circle assembly 2019. 

Hereafter  some  new  lines  of  thinking  emerge  and  some  recommendations  are  given  to  answer  five 
policy objectives: 

1.  Maximising  the  benefits  for  the  Arctic  users  at  economic,  societal  and  environmental 

level 

Accelerate the efforts to increase the development of broadband communication to ensure that the Arctic 
region  that  requires  more and  more  capability  for  connecting,  visualizing,  and  analysing  satellite/AIS 
data are provided timely to the users even located in remote areas. Given the actual distribution and 
density of the local communities, a total backhaul capacity in the order of 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s can 
be assumed. 

This  effort  should  be  carried  out  considering  that  users  should  have  access  to  European 
communications system in order to avoid their dependency on some non-EU countries. This is especially 
essential for information and development purposes. Such development need to be conducted in order 
that the minimum requirements for broadcasting service are aligned with the rest of the world. 

2.  Spreading the use of commercial data by facilitating usage 

The increasing launch of nanosatellites combining various payloads such as GNSS receiver (both for 
GNSS radio-occultation and reflectometry), AIS payload allow to cover specific needs in the Arctic and 
then need to be exploited efficiently. There is a need to control and facilitate the use of some innovative 
data such as Radio Occultation data that offer several benefits for environmental and climate monitoring 
and may come more often from commercial partners. 

Therefore, it is important to reinforce the Public Private Partnership (PPP) to maximize the exploitation 
of  data  acquired  by  the  increasing  number  of  commercial  missions.  The  PPP  is  needed  and  value 
analysis coming from cutting-edge satellites or constellations shall be studied.  

Concretely, this means to propose adequate mechanisms that allow assessing the scientific value of 
additional data provided by the increase of commercial missions. On-going initiatives include the support 
of  EUMETSAT  to  ESA  and  NOAA  for  GNSS  RO  data  by  commercial  entities.  To  do  so,  it  is  highly 
recommended  to  pursue  international  partnership  between  EUMETSAT,  NOAA  and  space  agencies 
worldwide.  It  is  also  desirable  that  ESA  and  the  European  Commission  contribute  to  the  ongoing 
transition from Research and Development towards full operations. 

3.  Supporting harmonization of devices and enlargement of existing services 

Facilitate the usage of Search and Rescue capability through GNSS by the users, harmonizing the type 
of device that need to be used (beacons systems). This implies fostering adoption of multi-constellation 
capable beacons to ensure interoperability and full use of the SaR capacities. 

Investigate suitable development of dedicated branch with existing Copernicus services. For example, 
with regard to the Copernicus Security Service (CSS), definition of new products and services tailored 
to  the  Arctic  should  be  investigated.  Any  such  new  products  can  fit  under  the  existing  three  service 
components, and no special new fourth service component would need to be set up for the Arctic. The 
description of the service components in the report already indicates some overlap, so it would help to 
further establish under which component new Arctic products and services would fall in an early phase 
of their definition. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Another  important  highlight of the study for  the maritime sector is the required  development of high-
resolution forecast systems, which are needed to ingest observations with appropriate data assimilation 
techniques, in order to fill the resolution  gap  between model-based forecast systems and  polar end-
users needs. 

4.  Promoting usage of synergies to maximise safety encounter threats  

Explore  potentials  of  synergies  within  the  EU  Space  programme  elements  of  broadband  mega-
constellations to improve internet connectivity, communication and GovSatCom in the Arctic region. 

Accelerate  and  increase  the  efforts  regarding  security  threats  that  need  a  fast  reaction  time  for 
intervention and real-time communication and wide-band SatCom for downlinking.  

Pursue  the  effort  on  evaluation  of  robustness  of  navigation  and  communication  capabilities  against 
interferences in the Arctic region analysing the various available EU Space programme elements and 
their use in synergy. Also, with the advent of innovative applications using Signals of Opportunities it is 
needed  to  increase  evaluation  on  possible  threats  and  interferences  on  news  systems  and  signals 
(nanosatellites, GNSS-reflectometry) and anticipate failures not only for military security applications but 
also for other domains like EO. Robustness against RF effects will be evaluated in the framework of an 
on-going ESA tender (EXPRO PLUS).  

5.  Promoting the sharing and widespread use of complex EO products and data platforms 

Provide educational material and training programme to the Artic Users to facilitate the use of complex 
EO products and data platforms in general. 

Regarding the societal benefits in the Arctic, a preliminary analysis has been made considering few case 
studies and focusing on the local impacts inside the Arctic region. A larger number of societal benefits 
may be expected considering the wide spectrum of issues and activities of indigenous peoples and local 
population and extending the impacts in the lower latitudes. Indeed, the rapid changes happening in the 
Arctic impact the rest of the globe by changing the atmospheric and ocean circulation processes at a 
larger scale.  

The study which has been based on a structured approach with reproducible methodologies (VTA and 
IL) should be extended in the future for a full understanding of the use of satellite products, their benefits 
on society and their quantification in economic terms, in the Arctic and at global scale. Examples are 
the sea level rise from the glaciers melting in Greenland, or weather extremes affecting the societies at 
the mid-latitudes.  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Allianz  Global  Corporate  &  Specialty.  2015.  “Safety  and  Shipping  Review  2015,”  no. 
December  2014:  36.  http://www.agcs.allianz.com/assets/PDFs/Reports/Shipping-
Review-2015.pdf. 

Alonso-Arroyo, Zavorotny, and Camps. 2017. “Sea Ice Detection Using U.K. TDS-1 GNSS-
R Data.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 55 (9): 4989–5001. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2017.2699122. 

Anthes,  Bernhardt,  Chen,  Cucurull,  Dymond,  Ector,  Healy,  et  al.  2008.  “The 
COSMIC/FORMOSAT-3 Mission: Early Results.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological 
Society 89 (3): 313–34. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-313. 

Arctic  Council  Task  Force  on  Improved  Connectivity  in  the  Arctic.  2019.  “Improving 

Connectivity in the Arctic.” 

Boniface, Gioia, Pozzoli, Diehl, Dobricic, Fortuny Guasch, Greidanus, et al. 2020. “Europe’s 
Space  Capabilities  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Arctic  -  Key  Capabilities  ,  Synergies  and 
Societal Benefits.” JRC Science for Policy Report. https://doi.org/10.2760/43511. 

Bormann,  Lawrence,  and  Farnan.  2019.  “Global  Observing  System  Experiments  in  the 

ECMWF Assimilation System.” ECMWF Technical Memorandum 839. 

Brigham,  McCalla,  Cunningham,  Barr,  VanderZwaag,  Chircop,  Santos-Pedro,  and 
MacDonald. 2009. “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA).”  Arctic Council. Vol. 
14. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004177567.i-594.47. 

Cardellach,  Ao,  de  la  Torre  Juárez,  and  Hajj.  2004.  “Carrier  Phase  Delay  Altimetry  with 
GPS-Reflection/Occultation  Interferometry  from  Low  Earth  Orbiters.”  Geophysical 
Research Letters 31 (10): 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019775. 

Cardellach,  Oliveras,  Rius,  Tomás,  Ao,  Franklin,  Iijima,  et  al.  2019.  “Sensing  Heavy 
Precipitation  With  GNSS  Polarimetric  Radio  Occultations.”  Geophysical  Research 
Letters 46 (2): 1024–31. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080412. 

Cardellach,  Tomás,  Oliveras,  Padullés,  Rius,  de  la  Torre-Juárez,  and  &  Ector.  2014. 
“Sensitivity  of  PAZ  LEO  Polarimetric  GNSS  Radio-Occultation  Experiment  to 
Precipitation Events., 53(1), 190-206.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote 
Sensing 53(1): 190–206. 

Cardinali.  2009.  “Monitoring  the  Observation  Impact  on  the  Short-Range  Forecast.” 
Quarterly  Journal  of  the  Royal  Meteorological  Society  135  (638):  239–50. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.366. 

Cardinali, and Healy. 2014. “Impact of GPS Radio Occultation Measurements in the ECMWF 
the  Royal 

System  Using  Adjoint-Based  Diagnostics.”  Quarterly  Journal  of 
Meteorological Society 140 (684): 2315–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2300. 

Cartwright,  Banks,  and  Srokosz.  2019.  “Sea  Ice  Detection  Using  GNSS-R  Data  From 
TechDemoSat-1.”  Journal  of  Geophysical  Research:  Oceans  124  (8):  5801–10. 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015327. 

Cartwright, Clarizia, Cipollini, Banks, and Srokosz. 2018. “Independent DEM of Antarctica 
Using  GNSS-R  Data  From  TechDemoSat-1.”  Geophysical  Research  Letters  45  (12): 
6117–23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077429. 

Chew,  Shah,  Zuffada,  Hajj,  Masters,  and  Mannucci.  2016.  “Demonstrating  Soil  Moisture 
Remote  Sensing  with  Observations  from  the  UK  TechDemoSat-1  Satellite  Mission.” 
Geophysical 
3317–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068189. 

Research 

Letters 

(7): 

43 

Claes, and Moe. 2014.  Arctic Petroleum Resources in a Regional and Global Perspective. 

134 

 
Edited  by  Tamnes  and  Offerdal.  London:  Geopolitics  and  Security  in  the  Arctic: 
Regional Dynamics in a Global World. 

Clarizia, Ruf, Cipollini, and Zuffada. 2016. “First Spaceborne Observation of Sea Surface 
Height  Using  GPS-Reflectometry.”  Geophysical  Research  Letters  43  (2):  767–74. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066624. 

CNBC. 2019. “Russia Eyeing Arctic Future Launches Nuclear Icebreaker,” 2019. 

Commission of the European communities. 2008. “Communication of the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council - The European Union and the Arctic Council. 
COM/2008/0763 Final.” 

Council of the European Union. 2019. “Draft Council Conclusions on ‘Space Solutions for a 

Sustainable Arctic.’” 

Dalsøren, Samset, Myhre, Corbett, Minjares, Lack, and Fuglestvedt. 2013. “Environmental 
Impacts of Shipping in 2030 with a Particular Focus on the Arctic Region.” Atmospheric 
Chemistry and Physics 13 (4): 1941–55. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1941-2013. 

Davidson,  Μ.,  et  al.  2019.  “Copernicus  L-Band  SAR  Mission  Requirements  Document, 

Version 1.0.” Noordwijk, The Netherlands. 

Deloitte.  2018.  “Impact  Assessment  Study  on  Societal  Benefits  of  Arctic  Observing 
Systems:  Evaluation  of  Costs  and  Benefits.  Final  Report.  15  June  2018.  (Available 
upon Request. Contact: Srdan Dobricic at the European Commission’s Joint Research 
Centre, Srdan.Dobricic@ec.” 

Devyatkin. 2018. “Russia’s Arctic Strategy: Aimed at Conflict or Cooperation ?” 

Dobricic,  Monforti-Ferrario,  Pozzoli,  Wilson,  Gambardella,  and  Tilche.  2018.  “Impact 
Assessment  Study  on  Societal  Benefits  of  Arctic  Observing  Systems.” 
https://doi.org/10.2760/713084. 

Donlon. 2019. “Copernicus Imaging Microwave Radiometer (CIMR) Mission Requirements 
Document. Version 2.0; ESA-EOPSM-CIMR-MRD-3236.” Noordwijk, The Netherlands. 
https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/CIMR-MRD-v3.0-
20190930_Issued.pdf. 

Duchossois,  Strobl,  Toumazou,  Antunes,  Bartsch,  Diehl,  Dinessen,  et  al.  2018.  “User 
Requirements  for  a  Copernicus  Polar  Mission  -  Phase  2  Report.”  Luxembourg 
(Luxembourg): 
Union. 
Publications 
https://doi.org/10.2760/44170. 

European 

Office 

the 

of 

EC. 2016. “Proposal for a Galileo-Based Emergency Warning Service.” 

Eguiluz,  Fernández-Gracia,  Irigoien,  and  Duarte.  2016.  “A  Quantitative  Assessment  of 

Arctic Shipping in 2010--2014.” Scientific Reports 6 (1): 1–6. 

EMSA. 2018. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance Product Catalogue,” 12. 

ESA.  2019.  “Copernicus  Hyperspectral  Imaging  Mission  for  the  Environment  -  Mission 
Requirements Document,” 1–95. https://doi.org/ESA-EOPSM-CHIM-MRD-3216. 

EU-PolarNet Consortium. 2017. “Deliverable D3.3. Survey of Existing Use of Space Assets 
Improved 

Including  Recommendations 

for 

by  European  Polar  Operators, 
Coordination.” 

———. 2018. “Deliverable D3.6. Gap Analysis Highlighting the Technical and Operational 
Requirements of the European Polar Research Programme for Satellite Applications.” 

Euroconsult,  MARINTEK,  SINTEF  ICT,  Telenor.  2011.  “Communications  Demands  in  the 

Arctic with a Forecast for 2015 and 2020.” 

European Commission. 2016a. “An Integrated European Union Policy for the Arctic,” 1–17. 
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/arctic_region/docs/160427_joint-communication-an-
integrated-european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf. 

135 

———. 2016b. “European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service – Ionospheric Correction Algorithm 

for Galileo Single Frequency Users.” 

———.  2016c.  “European  Union,  ‘Shared  Vision,  Common  Action:  A  Stronger  Europe.  A 

Global Strategy for the European’s Foreign and Security Policy.’” 

———. 2016d. “SAR/Galileo Service Definition Document.” 

———. 2016e. “Space Strategy for Europe.” file:///Users/bastiencuoc/Library/Application 
Support/Mendeley  Desktop/Downloaded/House  of  Commons  European  Scrutiny 
for 
- 
2017 
Committee 
Europe(2).pdf%0Afile:///Users/bastiencuoc/Library/Application 
Support/Mendeley 
Desktop/Downloaded/Ho. 

Strategy 

Space 

- 

———. 2018a. “Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the Signing, on Behalf of 
the European Union, of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in 
the 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Ocean.” 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0453&from=EN. 

Central 

Arctic 

———. 2018b. “Copernicus Service in Support to EU External Action. Product Portfolio.” 

———. 2018c. “Copernicus Service in Support to EU External Action. Service Overview.” 

———. 2018d. “EU and China Sign Landmark Partnership on Oceans.” 

———. 2018e. “Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL  Establishing  the  Space  Programme  of  the  Union  and  the  European  Union 
Agency for the Space Programme and Repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) 
No 1285/2013, (EU) No 377/2014 And.” 

———. 2019a. “Copernicus Market Report.” https://doi.org/10.2873/011961. 

———.  2019b.  “Walking  on  Thin  Ice :  A  Balanced  Arctic  Strategy  for  the  EU.  European 

Political Strategy Centre.” 

European Commission, and High Representative of the Union. 2012. “Joint Communication 
to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  -  Developing  a  European  Union  Policy 
towards the Arctic Region: Progress since 2008 and next Steps. JOIN(2012) 19 Final) 
and (SWD(2012) 182 Final) and (SWD(2012) 183 Final.” 

European Council. 2018. “Proposal for a Council Decisionon the Conclusion, on Behalf of 
the European Union, of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in 
the Central Arctic Ocean.” 

European GNSS Agency. 2016. “EGNOS Open Service (OS) Service Definition Document.” 

European  GNSS  Agency  (GSA).  2019a.  “Prior  Information  Notice:  EGNOS  Service 

Provision2019/S 022-047118.” Prague. 

———. 2019b. “Report on Road User Needs and Requirements Outcome of the European 

GNSS’ User Consultation Platform.” 

European Maritime Safety Agency. 2018. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance - Info Sheets.” 

———. 2019. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance. Service Overview.” 

European Union. 2016. “European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service Signal-in-Space Interface 

Control Document.” 

Everis. 2018. “Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic Observing Systems. 
Final Report. 31 January 2018. (Available upon Request. Contact: Srdan Dobricic at 
the Joint Research Center, Srdan.Dobricic@ec.Europa.Eu).” 

Foti, G., Gommenginger, Jales, Unwin, Shaw, Robertson, and Roselló. 2015. “Spaceborne 
GNSS  Reflectometry  for  Ocean  Winds:  First  Results  from  the  UK  TechDemoSat-1 
Mission.” 
5435–41. 
Research 
Geophysical 
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064204. 

Letters 

(13): 

42 

136 

Foti, Giuseppe, Gommenginger, Unwin, Jales, Tye, and Roselló. 2017. “An Assessment of 
Non-Geophysical  Effects  in  Spaceborne  GNSS  Reflectometry  Data  from  the  UK 
TechDemoSat-1  Mission.”  IEEE  Journal  of  Selected  Topics  in  Applied  Earth 
Observations and Remote Sensing 10 (7): 3418–29. 

German Government. 2019. “Germany ’ s Arctic Policy Guidelines Germany ’ s Arctic Policy 

Guidelines.” 

Gueel  Sans  Ariadna.  2018.  “Impact  Assessment  Study  on  Societal  Benefits  of  Arctic 

Observing Systems: Final Report.” Ispra (Italy): European Commission. 

Hegarty, and Kaplan. 2006. Understanding GPSPrinciples and Applications. 

Hjort,  Karjalainen,  Aalto,  Westermann,  Romanovsky,  E.  Nelson,  Etzelmüller,  and  Luoto. 
2018.  “Degrading  Permafrost  Puts  Arctic  Infrastructure  at  Risk  by  Mid-Century.” 
Nature Communications 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07557-4. 

IDA-STPI and SAON. 2017. International Arctic Observations Assessment Framework. IDA 
Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA, and Sustaining Arctic 
Observing Networks. Oslo, Norway. 

ITU. 2007. “Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-2: Technical Characteristics for an Automatic 
Identification System Using Time Division Multiple Access in the VHF Maritime Mobile 
Band.” 

Kern.  2019.  “Copernicus  PolaR  Ice  and  Snow  Topography  Altimeter  (CRISTAL)  Mission 
The  Netherlands. 

Requirements  Document, 
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/Copernicus_CRISTAL_MRD_v2.
0_Issued_20190228.pdf. 

2.0.”  Noordwijk, 

Version 

Kim, and Park. 2019. “Innovation: Monitoring Sea Level in the Arctic Using GNSS.”  GPS 
World,  2019.  https://www.gpsworld.com/a-tidal-shift-monitoring-sea-level-in-the-
arctic-using-gnss/. 

Kjerstad.  2011.  “AIS-Satellite  Data  Used  For  Arctic  Trafficability  Studies  In  the  NE-
Passage.” The Twenty-First International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 
Maui,  Hawaii,  USA:  International  Society  of  Offshore  and  Polar  Engineers. 
https://doi.org/. 

Koetz,  Berger,  Blommaert,  Bello,  Drusch,  Duca,  Gascon,  et  al.  2019.  “Copernicus  High 
Spatio-Temporal  Resolution  Land  Surface  Temperature  Mission :  Mission 
Requirements 
1–89. 
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/Copernicus_LSTM_MRD_v2.0_I
ssued20190308.pdf. 

Document,” 

Lawrence, and Slater. 2005. “A Projection of Severe Near-Surface Permafrost Degradation 
the  21st  Century.”  Geophysical  Research  Letters  32  (24):  1–5. 

during 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025080. 

Leppälä, Honkala, Ferrara, Kirkko-Jaakkola, Kuusniemi, and Miettinen-Bellevergue. 2019. 
“Challenges  in  Arctic  Navigation:  The  User  Perspective.”  In  European  Navigation 
Conference, ENC 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/EURONAV.2019.8714187. 

Li, Cardellach, Martín-neira, Fabra, Rius, and Ribó. 2017. “First Spaceborne Phase Altimetry 
Signals.” 

TechDemoSat-1 

GNSS-R 

Ice 

over 
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074513. 

Using 

Sea 

Loranty, Berner, Goetz, Jin, and Randerson. 2014. “Vegetation Controls on Northern High 
Latitude Snow-Albedo Feedback: Observations and CMIP5 Model Simulations.” Global 
Change Biology 20 (2): 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12391. 

Mack, Bret-Harte, Hollingsworth, Jandt, Schuur, Shaver, and Verbyla. 2011. “Carbon Loss 
from  an  Unprecedented  Arctic  Tundra  Wildfire.”  Nature  475  (7357):  489–92. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10283. 

137 

Magdaleno, Lacarra, Casa, López, R., and N. 2019. “SBAS GUIDELINES FOR SHIPBORNE 
RECEIVER: EGNOS PERFORMANCE BASE DONIMORES .A.1046(27).” N N U A L O F N 
A V I GA T I O N 26. 

Melia, Haines, and Hawkins. 2016. “Sea Ice Decline and 21st Century Trans-Arctic Shipping 
9720–28. 

Letters 

(18): 

43 

Research 
Geophysical 
Routes.” 
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069315. 

Ministry of External Affairs. 2013. “India and the Arctic.” 

Myneni,  Keeling,  Tucker,  Asrar,  and  Nemani.  1997.  “Increased  Plant  Growth  in  the 
Northern  High  Latitudes  from  1981  to  1991.”  Nature  386  (6626):  698–702. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/386698a0. 

Ødemark,  Dalsøren,  Samset,  Berntsen,  Fuglestvedt,  and  Myhre.  2012.  “Short-Lived 
Climate  Forcers  from  Current  Shipping  and  Petroleum  Activities  in  the  Arctic.” 
Atmospheric  Chemistry  and  Physics  12  (4):  1979–93.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-
12-1979-2012. 

Polar Regions Department. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2018. “Beyond the Ice UK 

Policy towards the Arctic Beyond the Ice.” 

Polar View Earth Observation Limited. 2016. “User Needs and High-Level Requirements for 

the next Generation of Observing Systems for the Polar Regions.” 

Poli, Healy, and Dee. 2010. “Assimilation of Global Positioning System Radio Occultation 
Data  in  the  ECMWF  ERA–Interim  Reanalysis.”  Quarterly  Journal  of  the  Royal 
Meteorological Society 136 (653): 1972–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.722. 

Pompeo. 2019. “Remarks at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting.” 

Portillo, del, Cameron,  and Crawley. 2019. “A  Technical Comparison of Three Low  Earth 
Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband.” Acta Astronautica 
159: 123–35. 

Pörtner,  Roberts,  Masson-Delmotte,  Zhai,  Tignor,  Poloczanska,  Mintenbeck,  et  al.  2019. 
“IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and 
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.” 

PwC. 2018a. “Study in Support of the Impact Assessment of an EU GOVSATCOM Initiative.” 

https://doi.org/10.2873/289144. 

———. 2018b. Study in Support of the Impact Assessment of an EU GOVSATCOM Initiative. 

https://doi.org/10.2873/289144. 

Reid, Walter, Blanch, and Enge. 2015. “GNSS Integrity in The Arctic.” In ION GNSS+2015. 

Institute of Navigation. 

République Francaise. 2016. “The Great Challenge of the Arctic - National Roadmap for the 
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/frna_-_eng_-interne_-_prepa_-

Arctic.” 
_17-06-pm-bd-pdf_cle02695b.pdf. 

Ruf,  and  Balasubramaniam.  2018.  “Development  of  the  CYGNSS  Geophysical  Model 
Function  for  Wind  Speed.”  IEEE  Journal  of  Selected  Topics  in  Applied  Earth 
Observations 
66–77. 
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2833075. 

Sensing 

Remote 

(1): 

and 

12 

Scottish Government. 2019. “Arctic Connections Scotland’s: Arctic Policy Framework.” 

Simmons,  A.  J.,  and  Poli.  2015.  “Arctic  Warming  in  ERA-Interim  and  Other  Analyses.” 
Quarterly  Journal  of  the  Royal  Meteorological  Society  141  (689):  1147–62. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2422. 

Simmons,  Adrian,  Fellous,  Ramaswamy,  Trenberth,  Asrar,  Balmaseda,  Burrows,  et  al. 
2016.  “Observation  and  Integrated  Earth-System  Science:  A  Roadmap  for  2016–
2037–2103. 
2025.” 

Advances 

Research 

Space 

(10): 

57 

in 

138 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2016.03.008. 

Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, Allen, Bindoff, Bréon, et al. 2014. “Climate Change 2013: 
The  Physical  Science  Basis:  Working  Group  I  Contribution  to  the  Fifth  Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In , 33–115. 

Subgroup Working Group C-ARAIM. 2015. “Milestone 2 Report.” 

Telecommunications 

Infrastructure  Working  Group.  2016. 

“Arctic  Broadband. 

Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic.” 

Telecommunications  Infrastructure  Working  Group,  and  Arctic  Economic  Council.  2017. 

“Arctic Broadband. Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic.” 

The Moscow Times. 2018. “Russia Will Restrict Foreign Warships in Arctic Ocean,” 2018. 

Toudal  Pedersen,  Dybkjær,  Eastwood,  Heygster,  Ivanova,  Kern,  Lavergne,  et  al.  2017. 
“ESA Sea Ice Climate Change Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Sea Ice Concentration Climate 
Data  Record  from  the  AMSR-E  and  AMSR-2  Instruments  at  25km  Grid  Spacing, 
Version 2.1.” Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, 05 October 2017. 

United  Nations.  2019.  The  Sustainable  Development  Goals  Report  2019. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18356/55eb9109-en. 

US  Department  of  Defense,  US  Department  of  Homeland  Security.  2008.  “Federal 

Radionavigation Plan.” Springfield, Virginia. 

Walderhaug,  Granja,  Horsch,  and  Hartvigsen.  2015.  “Telemedicine  Services  in  Arctic 
Environments-Challenges for Successful Implementation.” In SHI 2015, Proceedings 
from  The  13th  Scandinavien  Conference  on  Health  Informatics,  June  15-17,  2015, 
Tromsø, Norway, 98–101. 

Working Group C-ARAIM Technical Subgroup. 2016. “Milestone 3 Report.” 

Zhang,  and  Rothrock.  2003.  “Modeling  Global  Sea  Ice  with  a  Thickness  and  Enthalpy 
Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates.”  Monthly Weather Review 
131 
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0493(2003)131<0845:MGSIWA>2.0.CO;2. 

845–61. 

(5): 

139 

 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

AIS 

Automatic Identification System 

AOI 

Area of Interest 

Arctic ROOS Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System 

AWI Alfred Wegener Institute  

CFP  Common Fisheries Policy 

CFSP  Common Foreign and Security Policy 

CIMR Copernicus Imaging Microwave Radiometry mission 

CLS Collecte Location Satellites 

CMA China Meteorological Administration 

CMS  Copernicus Security Service – Maritime Surveillance 

CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales 

CSCDA Copernicus Space Component Data Access 

CSDP  Common Security and Defence Policy 

CSS  Copernicus Security Service 

DGI 

Digital Geographic Information 

DMI Danish Meteorological Institute 

DTU Technical University of Denmark 

EE 

Entrusted Entity 

EEAS  European External Action Service 

EEZ 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

EFCA  European Fisheries Control Agency 

EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System 

EGNSS European GNSS 

ELINT  Electronics Intelligence 

ELT Emergency Locator Transmitter 

EMSA  European Maritime Safety Agency 

EO 

Earth Observation 

EOL End Of Life  

EPIRB Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon 

ESA  European Space Agency 

EUSATCEN 

EU Satellite Centre 

FFSS Fractionated and Federated Satellite Systems 

FoA Frequency of Arrival 

GADSS Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System 

GGTO Galileo To GPS Time Offset 

GEO Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit 

GEO Group on Earth Observations 

140 

 
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System 

Hisdesat Hisdesat Servicios Estrategicos, S.A. 

HR 

High Resolution 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICE-CSIC Institude of Space Sciences - Spanish National Research Council 

IEEC Institute of Space Studies of Catalonia 

IMEDEA Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies  

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IUU 

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated 

JASON Joint Altimetry Satellite Oceanography Network 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

LBS Location-based Services 

LEGOS Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie 

LEO Low Earth Orbit 

LHCP Left Hand Circular Polarization 

LOV Observatoire Océanologique de Villefranche sur Mer 

LRIT 

Long Range Identification and Tracking 

LSCE Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement 

LUT Local Users Terminal 

MAOC-N  Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics 

MCC Mission Control Center 

MEO Medium Earth Orbit 

METOP-SG METOP Second Generation 

MICINN Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation 

ML 

Machine Learning 

MoD  Ministry of Defence 

MoFA  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

MS 

Member State 

MTCF MEOLUT Tracking Coordination Facility 

MTG Meteosat Third Generation 

MTG-I Meteosat Third Generation Imaging satellites 

MTG-S Meteosat Third Generation Sounding satellites 

NCC  National Coordination Centre 

NERSC Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NWP Numerical Weather Prediction 

ONION Operational Network of Individual Observation Nodes 

OS Open Service 

PLB Personal Location Beacon 

141 

 
PNT Positioning, Navigation and Timing 

PRS Public Regulated Service 

RCC Rescue Coordination Center 

RHPP Right Hand Circular Polarization 

ROHP Radio Occultation and Heavy Precipitation 

SAF Satellite Application Facility 

SaR Search-and-Rescue 

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar 

SEA  Copernicus Security Service – Support to EU External Action 

SGC SAR Galileo Coverage 

SGSC SAR/Galileo Service Centre 

SIC Sea Ice Concentration 

SIGINT Signals Intelligence 

SLSTR Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer 

SPOC Search and Rescue Point Of Contact 

ToA Time of Arrival 

UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

UNODC UN Office on Drugs and Crime 

VHR  Very High Resolution 

VMS  Vessel Monitoring System 

VTMIS  Vessel Traffic Management Integrated Services 

VTS 

Vessel Traffic Services 

142 

 
List of figures 

Figure 1: Arctic sea transport routes and ports. Source: www.nordregio.org ..............................11 

Figure 2: Galileo and EGNOS programmes governance ......................................................17 

Figure 3: Coordination and management of the Copernicus programme ..................................18 

Figure 4: Copernicus Space activities in the Polar Regions between 2016-2019. ........................18 

Figure 5: Past and future changes for Arctic sea ice extent (in September) and snow cover (in June). 
The relative change is computed with respect to 1986-2005 using two scenarios. RCP2.6 corresponds 
to a low greenhouse gas emission scenario whereas RCP8.5 is a high greenhouse gas emission 
scenario. Source: IPCC ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (Pörtner et al. 2019) ............21 

Figure 6: Distribution of permafrost in the baseline (2000–2014) and future (2041–2060) climates. The 
location and observed mean annual ground temperature (MAGT) of the data points (boreholes) are 
shown with coloured circles, from Hjort et al. 2018. ............................................................22 

Figure 7: Sentinel-1 revisit and coverage frequency. ..........................................................31 

Figure 8: Sentinel-1 polarisation and observation mode. ......................................................32 

Figure 9: Footprints of Sentinel 1 (EW mode) over 50° North for the full period of acquisitions (2014-
2020) ...................................................................................................................32 

Figure 10: Number of Sentinel 1 acquisitions computed over the full period (2014-2019) with a 250 km 
grid using the extra wide (EW, left) and interferometric wide (IW, right) modes. ..........................33 

Figure 11: Coverage and revisit of Sentinel-2. ..................................................................33 

Figure 12: Number of Sentinel 2 acquisitions computed over the full period (July 2015- September 
September 2019). The white squares with no acquisition are due to the acquisition plan. ..............34 

Figure 13: OLCI mean revisit times with a two-satellite configuration, in red 2 days are required to 
have revisit at equator, in blue less than 0.5 days at high latitude. ..........................................34 

Figure 14: SLSTR Mean Revisit Time with Two-Satellite Configuration9. ..................................35 

Figure 15: Sea ice concentration charts from the Copernicus Marine Environment Service (CMEMS).
 ..........................................................................................................................41 

Figure 16. Example of activation received by the Copernicus Emergency service on 15th July 2018 for 
iceberg delineation and risk assessment using satellite images from Spot 6/7 for the pre-event and 
Cosmo-Skymed as a post-event image. .........................................................................43 

Figure 17: Damage assessment showing final burn area in Sisimiut, Greenland using Spot 6/7 images.
 ..........................................................................................................................44 

Figure 18: Overview of wildfires monitored in the Arctic region between January and October 2019. 
Estimated burnt areas provided by the GWIS are depicted in red. ..........................................45 

Figure 19: Summary of the different Eumetsat SAF ...........................................................52 

Figure 20: KSAT delivers oil and vessel detection services for tasking areas 5,6,7,8 and 9. ...........54 

Figure 22: SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard ............................................................55 

Figure 23: EMODnet ship density map of the entire year 2017 covering the European Arctic. All data 
away from the coast are collected by satellite. ..................................................................57 

Figure 24: Simulated number of revisits in 24 hours obtained with the CIMR mission in the Arctic. 
(www.cimr.eu) ........................................................................................................60 

Figure 25: L-band data shows an increased coverage and availability of ground motion information as 
compared to C-band data (here for an area in Nepal around 2006) (from (Kern 2019)) .................61 

Figure 26: Galileo satellites geometry as a function of the user latitude. ...................................66 

Figure 27: Maximum satellite elevation as a function of the user latitude. Galileo, GPS and GLONASS 
satellites are used. ...................................................................................................66 

143 

Figure 28: Position (3D) dilution of precision and horizontal (2D) dilution of precision are shown over 
the Arctic region. .....................................................................................................67 

Figure 29: 2D positioning errors <95%> are shown: horizontal (left) and vertical positioning error (right) 
considering a dual frequency user and PDOP lower than 6. Single point positioning considering Signal 
in Space (SiS) errors only has been used. ......................................................................68 

Figure 30: Search and Rescue areas in the Arctic Region. ...................................................69 

Figure 31: SaR/Galileo European coverage area and ground facilities .....................................70 

Figure 32: Galileo EWS architecture. (From GRALLE project). ..............................................72 

Figure 33: EGNOS satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude. ............................73 

Figure 34: EGNOS Open Service coverage area. ..............................................................74 

Figure 35: Ionospheric Grid Points considering EGNOS satellite PRN 136, colour code for the GIVE 
values. .................................................................................................................75 

Figure 36: Time evolution of the cumulative number of EGNOS-based LPV and LPV200 operations in 
the Arctic region. The dashed lines are the real number of operations while the continuous lines 
represent the trend. ..................................................................................................76 

Figure 37: Time evolution of the number of airports in the Arctic Region with active or planned 
EGNOS-based procedures. ........................................................................................76 

Figure 38: ARAIM Availability as a function of the user location. The requirements used to compute 
availability are: Vertical Alert Limit (VAL) = 35 m, Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) = 40 m and Effective 
Monitoring Threshold (EMT) = 15 m. Scenario with 24 GPS + 24 Galileo satellites, dual-frequency 
iono-free combination. ..............................................................................................78 

Figure 39: Orbit configuration and limitations over polar areas ..............................................80 

Figure 40. Overview of the user communities and missions for each use-case family of GovSatCom 
users. Source: PwC 2018a. ........................................................................................81 

Figure 41: Transmission of GNSS and Argos data to the Processing centre and the users (left side). 
The instantaneous spatial footprint obtained with one Argos satellite pass is indicated (right). Source: 
Adapted from Argos/CLS ...........................................................................................85 

Figure 42: SARAL Orbit tracks over the Arctic computed along a day. Orbits are represented using 
SAT-LAB. .............................................................................................................85 

Figure 43. Iridium Next Constellation in the Arctic region. Orbits have been depicted using the AGI 
STK software. ........................................................................................................88 

Figure 44: System design of satellite-based broadband internet of OneWeb. .............................89 

Figure 45. Various types of user terminals. ......................................................................90 

Figure 46. Right: Solar powered user terminal, left: Residential Pico Cell with 200m range. ...........91 

Figure 47. Arctic coverage using the current six active satellites from OneWeb (last status February 
2020). ..................................................................................................................91 

Figure 48. Indicative satellite network portal locations (gateways) of OneWeb.34 .........................92 

Figure 49. Orbits of mega constellations: OneWeb (upper left), Starlink (upper right) and Telesat LEO.
 ..........................................................................................................................94 

Figure 50. Simulation of LoS of OneWeb, Telesat and Starlink (SpaceX) systems in different latitudes 
(left), and land mass location with population centres (right). ................................................95 

Figure 51: VTEC monitoring at 2000UT of day 360 of 2018 over the Northern pole cap. Image 
generated in the framework of the European Commission Service Contract POLarGIMs. ..............98 

Figure 52: The two domains for the reanalysis, a Western domain (labelled “IGB”) and an Eastern 
domain (labelled “AROME-Arctic”). Credit: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ .................................99 

144 

Figure 53: Surface air temperature anomaly for winter, spring, summer and autumn 2018 relative to 
the respective seasonal averages for the period 1981-2010. Winter values relate to December 2017 - 
February 2018. Data source: ERA5. Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)/ECMWF. . 100 

Figure 54: Timeline of the GNSS radio occultation missions. Source: Axel von Engeln (Eumetsat, May 
2020). ................................................................................................................ 102 

Figure 55: Surface characterization from GNSS-reflectometry (TechDemosat-1) over the Arctic region 
for the August and maximum extent in 2016. Red displays a sea ice assignment and blue an open 
water assignment. The black shaded area represents transition between sea ice and water during the 
month using the in the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative product (Toudal Pedersen 
et al. 2017). From (Cartwright et al. 2019) ..................................................................... 103 

Figure 56: Final expected OG1 and OG2 satellite footprints—complete global coverage. Image © 
ORBCOMM All Rights Reserved, 2016. ....................................................................... 106 

Figure 57: exactEarth satellite constellation. .................................................................. 106 

Figure 58: Sequential logical steps of the VTA and IL methodologies .................................... 110 

Figure 59: Arctic sea ice extent. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark grey. The grey areas around the 
median line show the interquartile and interquartile ranges (25th -75th) of the data. The averages for 
each decade are shown in different colours: 1979-1990 (orange); 1991-2000 (light green); 2001-2010 
(black); 2011-2018 (light blue). The year 2012, with minimum summer sea–ice cover, is shown with 
dashed red line. (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center). ........................................... 112 

Figure 60, left panel: Hypothetical open water vessel routes sailing through the September sea ice 
thickness field for eight recent years from the Pan‐Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System 
(PIOMAS) reanalysis (Zhang and Rothrock 2003). In the small box the main Arctic transit options are 
shown. Central and right panels: Fastest available September trans‐Arctic routes from multimodel 
projections. Routes for RCP2.6 (a) and RCP8.5 (b) for the period 2015-2030 (15 consecutive 
Septembers, from five GCMs each with three ensemble members, equating to 225 simulations per 
panel). Source: Melia et al. 2016. ............................................................................... 116 

Figure 61 Estimates of weighted impact of observing systems on the short term weather forecast at 
the ECMWF in August 2019. RO observations (“GPSRO” in the figure) contribute by 3-4% to the 
Forecast Sensitivity to Observations Impact (FSOI). ......................................................... 118 

Figure 62: Sea-ice thickness estimated from the SMOS mission observations. Left panel shows the 
November 2012 sea-ice cover and thickness. The right panel shows changes in sea-ice thickness 
during November between 2010 and 2016. (Source: 
http://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/SMOS/Satellite_cousins_have_ice_covered) 119 

Figure 63: Borders of the Search and Rescue region of the North Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres 
(JRCC North Norway), located in Bodø. Right top panel shows the total number of alerts received by 
the North-JRCC for every month after 2012, for sea, land and air emergencies. Right bottom panel 
shows the number of distress signals handled by Cospas/Sarsat NMCC for sea (EPIRB), land (PLB), 
and Air (ELT). ....................................................................................................... 122 

Figure 64: Short description of KPSO associated to sea-ice conditions. The impact on the value tree 
was assessed by experts in terms of number of SBA and SBA sub-areas, and key objectives for each 
KPSO. (Source: EVERIS,2018; Dobricic et al., 2018). ...................................................... 124 

Figure 65 Aggregate connections between all sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: Everis 2018; 
Dobricic et al. 2018). .............................................................................................. 126 

Figure 66: Connections between “Ship routing” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic 
et al., 2018). ........................................................................................................ 127 

Figure 67: Connections between “Search and Rescue” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, 
Dobricic et al., 2018). .............................................................................................. 127 

Figure 68: Connections between “Oil spill” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et 
al., 2018). ........................................................................................................... 128 

Figure 69: Connections between “Offshore installations” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 
2018, Dobricic et al., 2018). ...................................................................................... 128 

145 

146 

 
List of tables 

Table 1: Working groups of the Arctic Council. .................................................................13 

Table 2: Proposed EU space programme components with their function, budget breakdown, and 
objectives. .............................................................................................................16 

Table 3: EO needs listed by scientific activities and corresponding sectoral applications ...............23 

Table 4: Sentinel missions, status and key features.  Repeat is the interval that image acquisitions of 
the same area can be repeated under exactly the same angle. Revisit is the interval that a specific 
area can be imaged combining different imaging geometries, assuming the satellite is always 
collecting data (theoretical best times). ..........................................................................30 

Table 5: sSmmary table of the Arctic user-required functions classified according to land, coastal, 
marine and atmosphere domains for the Sentinels satellites. Entries: + means the satellite provides 
very limited information for the function, ++ moderate information, +++ very good information, and 
empty means no information or unknown. .......................................................................37 

Table 6: List of the different Thematic Data Assembly Centres, with the observations available and the 
specificity of the products for the Arctic region, infrastructure partners and users. .......................39 

Table 7 : List of European active satellites used by CAMS through data assimilation in the global real-
time forecast and global reanalysis systems. The different instruments on board the various European 
satellites are indicated with the corresponding parameters measured. .....................................42 

Table 8: Summary of the satellite observations provided by the Arctic ROOS and the partners involved 
in the products delivery..............................................................................................55 

Table 9: Summary of the main data, services and products provided in near real time by C-Core for 
Greenland. ............................................................................................................56 

Table 10: EU funded Arctic research and innovation H2020 projects .......................................58 

Table 11. Use-case families, user communities and actors for Arctic (PwC 2018a). .....................82 

Table 12. Main commercial satellite operators used by EU governmental users (PwC 2018b) .........82 

Table 13. European systems (dual-use and military) offering capacity and services to governmental 
users (taken from (PwC 2018a) ) ..................................................................................83 

Table 14. Broadband connection technologies and their pros and cons. ...................................87 

Table 15: Main characteristics of the 3 future candidate Mega Constellations: OneWeb, Starlink, and 
Telesat LEO including number of satellites, orbits descriptions, number of gateway stations, mission 
status and estimated Internet Throughput. ......................................................................93 

Table 16: Additional interviews with stakeholders ............................................................ 111 

Table 17: Number of SAR operations for two decades, 1995-2004 and 2005-2014, and grouped by 
different causes. ................................................................................................... 121 

147 

 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Galileo Open Service additional analysis  

The contribution of Galileo in the Arctic is further analysed considering some key indicators are shown 
in the following figures. Specifically, the mean number of satellite visible from each point of the Earth is 
shown in Figure 69. It can be seen that the average number of Galileo visible satellites in the Arctic 
region is similar to the values observed for other regions of the Earth. In particular, it emerges that the 
average number of satellites varies between 6.7 and 7.6. Considering only the Arctic region as defined 
in section 5, the values are between 6.7 and 7.7.  

Figure 69: Mean number of Galileo visible satellites as a function of the user location. 

Another  key  performance  indicator  for  the  navigation  solution  is  the  Position  Dilution  Of  Precision 
(PDOP) which gives an indication of the satellite geometry. Considering a low to moderate PDOP (value 
lower than 5) meaning that the satellite geometry is close to usual conditions but could be improved the 
positioning availability  is shown  on the  world map in  Figure 70. From the figure, it emerges that  the 
position availability in the Arctic region is around 93%. The value is higher than in the middle latitude 
region where the value varies between 92.75% and 93%. 

Figure 70: Positioning availability considering a PDOP lower than 5.  

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. Galileo SaR Service elements and Return Link evolution  

SaR service exploits four elements summarized in Section 5.2.2: 

Distress  radio-beacons,  which  transmit  a  coded  message  on  the  406  MHz  distress  frequency  via 
satellite  and  earth  stations  to  the  nearest  rescue  co-ordination  centre.  Different  types  of  devices  are 
currently available, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT); specifically, for aviation, Emergency Position 
Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) for maritime use, and Personal Location Beacon (PLB) for personal 
use. 

Instruments on board satellites which detect the signals transmitted by distress radio beacons; 

Local  Users  Terminals  (LUTs)  which  receive  and  process  the  satellite  signals  to  generate  distress 
alerts. Three different types of receiving stations, depending on the satellites orbit LEOLUT, GEOLUT 
and MEOLUT respectively (MEOLUT for Galileo). 

Mission  Control  Center  (MCC)  is  able  to  receive  alerts  produced  by  LUTs  and  forwards  them  to 
Rescue Coordination Centers (RCCs), Search and Rescue Point of Contact (SPOC) or other MCCs. 

Figure  71:  Search  and  Rescue  infrastructure  including  the  emergency  beacons  activated  from  the  users,  the 
transmission of the different satellites, the local users’ terminals (LUT), the Mission Control Center (MCC).  

A  possible  evolution  of  the  SaR  Galileo  return  link  is  currently  under  discussion  and  needs  to  be 
discussed  and  accepted  by  Cospas/Sarsat,  the  proposal  of  the  evolution  include  the  following 
capabilities: 

The remote activation command will be exploited when a user is considered to be in a distress situation. 
In addition it will be particularly useful in the case of missing or lost boat; or to localize a non-cooperative 
or missing vehicle. Finally, the remote activation could be used to improve the quality of the received 
signal: if several beacons are available on the same vehicle,  and  one of these beacons is activated, 
another  beacon can be remotely activated if the first is not received with a good quality. 

The remote deactivation can be used to stop the transmission (alert or cancellation) of an active beacon. 
This  functionality  is  of  particular  relevance  when  a  beacon  is  accidentally  activated  and  cannot  be 
manually deactivated; or it can be used in the case that the user is no longer in distress. Finally, the 

149 

 
 
 
remote deactivation can be used to have a more robust cancellation service, in particular if there is a 
risk that it is a false cancellation.  

Transmission parameters change is a command broadcast trough the Return Link channel. In order to 
avoid  signal  collision,  when  multiple  beacons  are  activated  in  the  same  area.  This  allows  an 
improvement  of  the  localization  capabilities.  The  battery  of  a  beacon  in  the  case  of  distress  is  a 
fundamental aspect, hence to preserve the battery duration the transmission rate of a beacon can be 
reduced. Finally, changing the rotating field it is possible to broadcast additional data (e.g. temperature, 
wind, sea state etc.). 

The messaging service is a SAR/Galileo service which may use both the Forward Link and the Return 
Link channels (navigation frequency channel) to exchange messages between  the RCC and the user 
for an active 406 MHz distress beacon. The messaging service is designed for beacon with an identified 
and reachable user, i.e. beacons with manual activation capability and portable beacons. 

Messaging  service  allows  to  improve  the  management  of  the  distress  situation;  the  service  has  two 
operation modes one or two way messaging. It is based on Short Messaging Service (SMS) which are 
sent using the Return Link Service. This service is particularly useful when no other available or reliable 
communication system are present. 

Distress position sharing. This functionality allows to share the position of an alert is with all the Galileo 
receivers in a defined area. This capability is fundamental for maritime activities, it can be used to trigger 
the solidarity at sea which is a common value for people operating at sea, also the SOLAS (Safety Of 
Life At Sea) convention and report such aspect. 

150 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3. List of experts and questions used to perform the societal impact assessment 

Institute 

Acronym 
definition 

User group 

Web link 

International 
consortium 

https://www.arcticobserving.org/ 

Type 
project 

of 

Internationa
l 

Service provider  https://www.esa.int/ 

International 

International 
consortium 

https://eu-polarnet.eu/ 

EU  H2020 
Project 

SAON 

ESA 

EU-
Polarnet 

Sustaining 
Arctic 
Observing 
Network 

European 
Space 
Agency 

A  European 
to 
network 
co-develop 
and  advance 
European 
Polar 
Research 

INTARO
S 

Integrated 
Arctic 
observation 
system  

International 
consortium 

Service provider 

http://www.intaros.eu/ 

EU  H2020 
Project 

Permafro
st 

Permafrost 
project 

International 
consortium 

https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/permafr
ost/ 

ESA project 

Mercator-
Ocean 

ECMWF 

WGMS 

WMO 

ICES 

Service provider 

Service provider  https://www.mercator-ocean.fr/en/ 

France 

for 

Scientific 
Research 
Service provider 

https://www.ecmwf.int/ 

International 

Ocean 
science-
based 
services  

European 
Centre 
Medium-
Range 
Weather 
Forecasts 

World Glacier 
Monitoring 
Service 

Scientific 
Research 
Service provider 

https://wgms.ch/ 

International 

World 
Meteorologic
al 
Organisation 

International 
Council 
the 

for 

Agency 

https://public.wmo.int/en 

International 

Agency 

https://www.ices.dk/ 

International 

Service provider 

151 

 
 
Blue-
Action 

WEMC 

ICE-ARC 

STPI 

FMI 

IASC 

CAFF 

ISAC-
CNR 

Exploration 
of the Sea 

Arctic  Impact 
on  Weather 
and Climate 

Scientific 
Research 

http://blue-action.eu/ 

EU  H2020 
Project 

Agency 

https://www.wemcouncil.org/wp/ 

International 

International 
consortium 

Scientific 
Research 

https://www.ice-arc.eu/ 

EU 
Project 

FP7 

Scientific 
Research 

https://www.ida.org/ida-ffrdcs/science-
and-technology-policy-institute 

USA 

https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ 

Finland 

Scientific 
Research 

Service provider 

Agency 

https://iasc.info/ 

International 

International 
consortium 

Agency 

https://www.caff.is/ 

International 

International 
consortium 

Scientific 
Research 

https://www.isac.cnr.it/en 

Italy 

World Energy 
& 
Meteorology 
Council 

Ice,  Climate, 
Economics  – 
Arctic 
Research  on 
Change  

Science  and 
Technology 
Policy 
Institute 

Finnish 
Meteorologic
al Institute 

International 
Arctic 
Science 
Committee 

Conservation 
of Arctic Flora 
and Fauna 

Institute 
of 
Atmospheric 
Sciences and 
Climate, 
National 
Research 
Council  

The main  goal  of  the  workshop  within  the  study  on  the  “Impact  Assessment  on  Societal  Benefits  Of 
Arctic Observing Systems” was to capture the consensual position of the participants with regards to 
the: 

-  Main observational systems in the Arctic that should be prioritised for quantitative analysis; 

-  Cost estimation methodologies for the main observational systems; 

-  Key products, services and outcomes (KPSO) produced by the main observational systems; 

-  Societal Benefits resulting from the KPSO; 

-  Studies that collect users’ requirements and can be used for the final report. 

The questions around which the discussions were centered were divided into two different topics and 
they are listed below. 

152 

 
 
Observational Systems: 

  Do you think that there is a need to classify observational systems in a different way? (different 

to the seven themes proposed) 

  Which do you think are the main observational systems in the ARCTIC? 

  How can we estimate the costs for the main observational systems of each theme? 

  What observational systems do you foresee to have in the future? 

Societal benefits areas: 

  What key products, services or outcomes can be produced for the main observational systems?  

  Can you link these key products, services or outcomes to one or more societal benefits?  

Surveys 

A survey was created targeting the areas of interest through 27 questions. The questions addressed 
concrete requirements related to observational systems and their future maintenance and creation of 
additional needed OS, KPSOs, data sharing, societal benefits and costs. 

1. List the observational systems you have/own 

2. List the observational systems you use (but don't own) 

3. List all your key products, services or outcomes per observational systems that you have and/or use 

4. On which observational networks do you rely? 

5. What categories of observational systems do you have and/or use? 

6. Which physical, biogeochemical and human dimension variables do the observational systems you 
have and/or use observe? 

7. To which of the following themes would you classify/link the observational systems you have and/or 
use? 

8. Are there any missing themes under which your observational systems can be classified? 

9. Which additional products, services or outcomes could result from the observational systems that you 
have and/or use? 

10.  Which  additional  observational  systems  could  be  used  to  enhance  your  products,  services  or 
outcomes? 

11. Do you foresee any other future products, services or outcomes besides the ones deriving from the 
observational systems you have and/or use? 

12. Do  you have key products, services or outcomes linked to particular economic activities that are 
emerging due to global warming? 

13. Which economic sectors are using your key products, services or outcomes? 

14.  Do  you  share  your  data  with  other  economic  sectors?  If  yes,  which  ones?  Are  you  planning  or 
targetting additional economic sectors to share your data with? 

15.  Could  you  associate  your  key  products,  services  or  outcomes  to  any  of  the  12  specific  societal 
benefits listed below? 

16. Do your products, services or outcomes produce any additional societal or economic benefits other 
than the 12 mentioned above? 

17.  Which  of  your  products,  services  or  outcomes  are  producing  more  societal  benefits  or  could 
potentially produce more societal benefits? 

18. Can you think of future benefits other than the ones currently existing? 

19. Do you estimate the societal benefits resulting from your key products, services or outcomes? If yes, 
which one(s) and how do you estimate it (qualitative and quantitative estimates)? 

20. Could you provide the high level estimation of your observational systems investment cost? 

153 

21. Could you provide the high level estimation of your observational systems operational cost per year? 

22. Do you perform internal cost-benefit analysis of your observational systems? 

23. Do you have a two-five-year investment plan in your observational systems? (improve current/new 
services) 

24. Do you plan to build new observational systems besides the ones you currently have? If so, could 
you briefly describe them? What would be the provided service, the benefit and the cost? 

25.  Do  you  plan  to  extend  the  coverage  or  frequency  of  your  existing  observational  systems? What 
would be the service, the benefit and the cost? 

26. Are there potentially important observational systems in the Arctic that are currently missing? 

27. Which future observational systems in the  Arctic  would improve  your key products, services and 
outcomes? 

154 

 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
6
2
9
-

E
N
N

-

155 

doi:10.2760/270136 

ISBN 978-92-76-32079-1