COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of the EU Space Programme and on the performance of the European Union Agency for the Space Programme
Date: 2024-07-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, EU programme, European Space Agency, digital transformation, extra-atmospheric space, satellite communications, satellite navigation, space policy, space technology, use of outer space

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.7.2024  SWD(2024) 173 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  on the implementation of the EU Space Programme and on the performance of the European Union Agency for the Space Programme             {COM(2024) 289 final} - {SEC(2024) 202 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

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

1.1.  Methodology ................................................................................................................... 7 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ..................................... 10 

2.1. 

Intervention Logic.......................................................................................................... 10 

2.2. 

Description of the intervention, its objectives and performance framework .............. 14 

2.2.1. 

Needs ..................................................................................................................... 14 

2.2.2. 

Objectives and performance framework .............................................................. 15 

2.2.3. 

Input ...................................................................................................................... 15 

2.3. 

Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................................. 20 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 22 

3.1. 

Current state of play ...................................................................................................... 22 

3.2.  New developments in the period covered by the evaluation ....................................... 22 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 27 

To what extent has the Space Programme been successful and why? (Effectiveness, 

4.1. 
efficiency, coherence) ............................................................................................................... 27 

4.1.1. 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 27 

A.  Galileo effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 27 

B. 

EGNOS effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 30 

C.  Copernicus effectiveness ............................................................................................... 35 

D.  Space Situational Awareness Effectiveness .................................................................. 38 

E.  GOVSATCOM Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 41 

F. 

The Programme in support of the competitiveness of the EU space ecosystem ......... 43 

G.  General remarks on effectiveness of the programme towards its general objectives . 46 

4.1.2. 

Efficiency and Cost Benefit Assessment ................................................................ 51 

A.  Galileo Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 51 

B.  Copernicus Efficiency .................................................................................................... 52 

C. 

Space Situational Awareness Efficiency ........................................................................ 53 

D.  GOVSATCOM Efficiency ................................................................................................. 54 

E.  General remarks on Efficiency ...................................................................................... 55 

4.1.3. 

Coherence ............................................................................................................. 55 

 
 
 
 
 
A.  Coherence of Galileo and EGNOS .................................................................................. 56 

B.  Coherence of Copernicus .............................................................................................. 57 

C.  Coherence of SSA .......................................................................................................... 58 

D.  Coherence of GOVSATCOM ......................................................................................... 59 

E.  Coherence and synergies with other EU funding programmes (Horizon Europe, Invest 
EU)  59 

F. 

Contribution of the Programme to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals .. 65 

G.  General remarks on coherence ..................................................................................... 67 

4.2. 

How did the Space Programme make a difference and to whom? (EU Added Value) . 67 

A.  EU Added Value of Galileo and EGNOS ......................................................................... 68 

B. 

C. 

EU Added Value of Copernicus ...................................................................................... 70 

EU Added Value of Space Situational Awareness ......................................................... 70 

D.  EU Added Value of GOVSATCOM .................................................................................. 71 

E.  General remarks on EU Added Value ............................................................................ 71 

4.3. 

Is the Space Programme still relevant? ......................................................................... 72 

A.  Relevance of Galileo and EGNOS................................................................................... 72 

B.  Relevance of Copernicus ............................................................................................... 74 

C.  Relevance of Space Situational Awareness ................................................................... 76 

D.  Relevance of GOVSATCOM............................................................................................ 78 

E.  General remarks on relevance ...................................................................................... 79 

5.  MAIN FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF EUSPA ......................................... 81 

5.1. Assessment of the implementation of the entrusted tasks to EUSPA ............................... 82 

5.2. Assessment of the implementation of the EUSPA core tasks ............................................ 83 

Core task 1: Security accreditation........................................................................................ 83 

Core task 2: Operational security for Galileo & EGNOS ........................................................ 84 

Core task 3: Operation of the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre ....................................... 84 

Core task 4: Galileo Public Regulated Service Activities........................................................ 84 

Core task 5: Communication, promotion, and market development ................................... 85 

Core task 6: Agency management ......................................................................................... 85 

5.3 Independence and autonomy of the Security Accreditation Board ................................... 86 

5.4. EUSPA’s Conflict of Interest Policy ..................................................................................... 87 

6.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 88 

6.1 General Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 88 

6.2 Lessons learnt ...................................................................................................................... 90 

ANNEX I: GENERAL INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 93 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................. 102 

 
 
A.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 102 

a.  Galileo Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 103 

b. 

c. 

d. 

EGNOS Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 107 

Copernicus Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 111 

SSA Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 115 

e.  GOVSATCOM Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 115 

B.  Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 118 

a.  Benefits assessment of Copernicus ............................................................................. 119 

b.  Benefits assessment of Galileo .................................................................................... 122 

c. 

Benefits assessment of SST ......................................................................................... 125 

d.  Benefits assessment of SWE ....................................................................................... 128 

e.  Benefits assessment of NEO ........................................................................................ 134 

f. 

Benefits assessment of GOVSATCOM ......................................................................... 136 

C.  Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 137 

D.  Coherence ....................................................................................................................... 137 

E. 

EU Added Value ............................................................................................................... 138 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ..................................................................................................... 139 

A.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 141 

B.  Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 142 

C.  Relevance ........................................................................................................................ 142 

D.  Coherence ....................................................................................................................... 143 

E. 

EU Added Value ............................................................................................................... 144 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ......................................................................... 145 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ........................................... 154 

ANNEX VI:   COHERENCE AMONG EU SPACE COMPONENT ........................................................ 158 

ANNEX  VII.  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  PROGRAMME’S  ACHIEVEMENTS  TOWARDS  SDGS 

GOALS ............................................................................................................................................. 163 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BCR 

C3S 

CAMS 

CLMS 

Benefit Cost Ratio 

Copernicus Climate Change Service 

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service 

Copernicus Land Monitoring Service 

CMEMS 

Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service 

ECA 

European Court of Auditors 

ECMWF 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts 

EEA 

EGNOS 

EMSA 

EMS 

ESA 

European Environment Agency 

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service 

European Maritime Surveillance Agency 

Emergency Management Service 

European Space Agency  

EUMETSAT 

European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 

EUSPA 

European Union Agency for the Space Programme 

EWSS 

FFPA 

FOC 

Emergency Warning Satellite Service 

Financial Framework Partnership Agreement 

Full Operational Capability 

FRONTEX 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

GSA 

GNSS 

GPS 

GRC 

GSMC 

HAS 

European GNSS Agency 

Global Navigation Satellite System 

Global Positioning System 

Galileo Reference Centre 

Galileo Security Monitoring Centre 

High Accuracy Service 

 
 
 
IOD/IOV 

In orbit demonstration/in orbit validation 

KPI 

MFF 

MOI 

NEO 

OS 

Key Performance Indicators 

Multi-Annual Financial Framework 

Mercator Ocean International 

Near-Earth Objects 

Open Service 

OSNMA 

Open Service Navigation Message Authentication 

PRS 

R&D 

SAB 

SAR 

Public Regulated Service 

Research and Development  

Security Accreditation Board 

Search and Rescue 

SATCEN 

European Union Satellite Centre 

SBAS 

Satellite-based Augmentation Systems 

SDA 

SSA 

SST 

SWD 

SWE 

Space, Defence and Aeronautics 

Space Situational Awareness 

Space Surveillance and Tracking 

Staff Working Document 

Space Weather Events 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  EU  Space  Programme  (the  Programme)  was  established  by  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/696 (the Regulation)1. 

The  Programme  encompasses  for  the  first  time  all  EU  space  activities  in  one  single 
Regulation, namely the existing space flagships Galileo and the European Geostationary 
Navigation  Overlay  Service  (EGNOS),  Copernicus  and  new  initiatives  on  space 
situational  awareness  (SSA)  and  satellite  communication  (GOVSATCOM).  Tasks  are 
distributed between the various actors: the Commission, the European Union Agency for 
the Space Programme (EUSPA), the European Space Agency (ESA) and other entrusted 
entities2 that are tasked with activities related to the implementation of the Programme, 
based on contribution agreements. 

The Programme is composed of: 

•  Galileo and EGNOS for positioning, navigation, and timing services. The Galileo 
space infrastructure is based on a constellation of satellites in medium Earth orbit, 
working  in  conjunction  with  a  global  network  ground-based  stations  and  user 
receivers.  EGNOS  is  a  satellite-based  augmentation  system  (SBAS)  providing 
users  with  improved  positioning  information.  EGNOS  is  composed  of  a 
constellation  of  at  least  three  geostationary  telecommunication  satellites  and  a 
network of ground infrastructures. 

•  Copernicus  for  Earth  observation  data  and  services,  which  is  served  by  a  set  of 
dedicated  satellites  (the  Sentinel  families3)  and  contributing  missions  (existing 
commercial  and  public  satellites).  In  addition,  Copernicus  relies  on  many 
environmental  measurements  collected  by  data  providers  external  to  Copernicus, 
from  ground-based,  sea-borne,  or  air-borne  monitoring  systems,  as  well  as 
geospatial reference or ancillary data, collectively referred to as “in situ” data. 
•  SSA to enhance capabilities to monitor, track and identify space objects and debris, 
increasing  the  performance  and  autonomy  of  capabilities  under  the  Space 
Surveillance and Tracking (SST) subcomponent, providing Space Weather Events 
(SWE) services and mapping and networking Member States capacities under the 
Near-Earth Object (NEO) subcomponent. 

1 Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing 
the Union Space Programme and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme 

2 European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), European Centre 
for  Medium-Range  Weather  Forecast  (ECMWF),  Mercator  Ocean  International  (MOI),  The  European 
Maritime  Surveillance  Agency  (EMSA),  The  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  (FRONTEX), 
The European Environment Agency (EEA), the European Union Satellite Centre (SATCEN). 

3 About Copernicus: Discover our Satellites 

5 

 
 
 
•  SST  is  a  network  of  ground-based  and  space-based  sensors  capable  of 
surveying and tracking space objects, together with processing capabilities 
aiming to provide data, information and services on space objects that orbit 
around the Earth. 

•  SWE aims at creating ways to monitor and assess natural changes related to 
space  weather  events,  such  as  solar  winds,  solar  flares,  or  coronal  mass 
ejections.  To  this  end,  the  EU  supports  activities  that  will  lead  to  the 
establishment of a SWE services. 

•  NEO  system  is  based  on  syndicating  and  federating  observation  and 
tracking  data  provided  by  a  large  number  of  European  and  international 
sources to monitor the risk of natural space objects approaching the Earth, 
such as asteroids and comets. 

•  GOVSATCOM  to  ensure  the  long-term  availability  of  reliable,  secure  and  cost-
effective  satellite  communication  services 
for  EU  governmental  users. 
GOVSATCOM will use the capacities and services provided  by existing  national 
satcom  systems  and  accredited  private  operators.  The  access  to  these  existing 
infrastructures will be provided through one or several operational Hubs. 

The  Regulation  also  sets  up  EUSPA4  as  an  evolution  of  the  European  GNSS  Agency 
(GSA)5,  with  an  extended  mandate,  particularly  as  regards  the  management  of  the 
exploitation  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS,  the  security  accreditation  as  well  as  market  and 
downstream  applications  development  for  all  components.  In  relation  to  security  in 

4 About EUSPA 

5 Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 Setting Up the European GNSS Agency 

6 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
particular, the Agency is responsible for the security accreditation tasks for all the Union 
actions in the space sector through the Security Accreditation Board (SAB). 

Article 102 of the Regulation mandated the European Commission to evaluate both the 
implementation  of  the  Programme  and  the  performance  of  EUSPA  and  to  present  a 
Report by June 2024 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The Report is accompanied by 
this  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  detailing  the  evidence-based  assessment,  based 
on the independent study “Evaluation of the Performance of the Implementation of the 
EU Space Programme and of EUSPA” prepared by and external contractor6. 

In  a  nutshell,  the  evaluation  reviews  the  performance  of  the  infrastructure,  the  services 
provided by the Programme, the users’ satisfaction, and the evolution of their needs, as 
well as EUSPA’s performance and policy on conflict of interest. 

1.1.  Methodology 

In accordance with the  Better Regulation toolbox7, the evaluation is based on the five 
evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value), 
for  each  of  the  component  of  the  Programme,  with  dedicated  indicators  and  evaluation 
questions,  in  combination  with  the  requirements  included  in  article  102  of  the 
Regulation. 

The evaluation covers all 27 EU Member States for the period from 2021, when the first 
entrusted entities were delegated funds from the Programme to the most recent reporting 
milestone available in 2023. 

As regards data collection, the evaluation is based on a broad range of tools, including a 
desktop  literature  review  of  documentation  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation,  such  as  Programme  Performance  Statements,  contribution  agreements  with 
entrusted  entities,  work  programmes  and  annual  implementation  reports,  targeted 
consultations  with  the  entrusted  entities  to  gather  data  on  the  implementation  of  the 
components  of  the  Programme.  A  total  of  70  stakeholders  were  interviewed  from  16 
organisations, representing the full spectrum of the value chain. 

The evaluation also relies on consultations with the Commission services (Inter- Service 
Group on Space), dedicated meetings with the Space Programme Committee’s different 
configurations and a meeting with representatives of the industry in the framework of the 
Commission Expert Subgroup on Policies & Programmes relevant to EU Space Defence 
and Aeronautics Industry (SDA Expert Group)8, in particular on the procurement aspects. 

6  Mid-Term  Evaluation  of  the  Performance  of  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Space  Programme  and  of 
EUSPA 

7 Better Regulation Toolbox  

8 Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities 

7 

 
 
In addition, a Call for Evidence was published on the “Have your say portal”9  and it has 
received  responses  from  the  largest  and  most  representative  associations  in  the  sector, 
representing  over  150  members  from  numerous  countries  (a  detailed  summary  is  in 
Annex V). 

The cost benefit analysis of the quantitative data, in particular for the efficiency criteria 
is based on calculation. The efficiency matrix is based on a ratio between the benefits of 
a  Programme  component  and  the  budget  allocated  to  it.  The  benefits  of  the  different 
components  with  models  and  calculations  are  explained  in  Section  4  and  detailed  in 
Annex II. 

Therefore, the results presented in the evaluation are based on solid evidence and robust 
calculations.  More  details  on  the  methodology,  data  gathering,  and  the  calculations  are 
explained  in  the  different  Sections  of  the  SWD  and  in  its  Annexes.  Additional 
information can be found in the Study. 

As the Regulation has entered into force on 28 April 2021, many activities related to the 
new  established  components,  SSA  and  GOVSATCOM,  started  their  operational  phase 
only  at  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period,  therefore  it  was  not  possible  to  carry  on  a 
detailed assessment.  In other cases, the conclusion of the contribution agreements with 
certain  entrusted  entities  was  longer  than  expected,  with  a  consequent  delay  in  the 
implementation of the entrusted tasks. 

In  addition,  since  Galileo,  EGNOS  and  Copernicus  were  launched  before  the  current 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF),  it  was  not  always  possible  to  perform  a  cost 
benefit assessment or measure the impact for the period 2021- 2023, as it would not be an 
accurate  comparison  between  costs  and  benefits.  Whereas  costs  are  instantaneous,  the 
benefits  from  the  exploitation  of  EU  space  components  are  the  consequence  of  the 
investment  to  develop  the  infrastructures,  including  the  investments  made  before  the 
programmes  became  completely  operational.  Consequently,  they  are  inherently  long-
term  and  continuous,  collectively  allowing  for  the  continuity  of  the  Union’s  efforts  in 
their  respective  domains  towards  their  respective  objectives.  Also,  some  of  the 
investments done under this MFF (for all the components) will be measured in the next 
timeframes. Moreover, the Programme components were launched at different points in 
time and with different roll-out, which result in non-homogeneous overall timeframes of 
each  component.  Consequently,  several  estimations  of  the  Programme’s  effectiveness 
and efficiency are based on longer-time projections, apportioned, where possible, to the 
reference period of the present evaluation. It would not only be difficult to analyse solely 
the  Programme’s  performance  in  the  timeframe  of  2021-2023,  but  also  unjustified 
against  the  Programme’s  design  and  objectives.  It  would  also  skew  the  assessment, 
making it cost-heavy in the expectation of future benefits that have not fully materialised 
in the period covered by this evaluation. The evaluation also recognises the difficulties in 

9 Mid-Term Evaluation of the Space Programme 

8 

 
 
attributing  the  benefits  to  the  functioning  of  the  Programme’s  components,  which  for 
most  parameters  are  not  isolated  in  the  space  and  space-based  systems.  To  address  the 
co-existence  of  various  systems  and  activities,  the  analysis  of  efficiency  took  into 
account several contribution scenarios.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1. 

Intervention Logic 

The intervention logic of the Programme builds upon the legal text of the Regulation, the 
Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for the Regulation10 and the 
2016 Space Strategy for Europe11 (the Space Strategy) mentioned in Section 2.3 (point of 
comparison). The starting point of the intervention logic consists in the  needs justifying 
the  EU  intervention.  Section  2.2  below  provides  more  detail  on  the  components  of  the 
intervention logic, supplementing the present schematic explanation.  

10 SWD/2018/327 on the Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation Establishing the 
Space Programme of the Union and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme 

11 COM(2016) 705 on the Space Strategy for Europe 

10 

 Needs (2018 Impact Assessment) -Global challenges due to growing populations, increased demand for natural resources and climate change require accurate and timely information about our planet.  -Digitalisation and new economy. -Security of infrastructure ad Union’s autonomy.  -Ensure competitiveness of EU ecosystem towards tough competition from traditional, emerging, and new space powers and industrial actors.  Needs (2016 Space Strategy) -Maximising the benefits of space for society and the EU economy.   -Fostering a globally competitive and innovative European space sector.   -Reinforcing Europe’s autonomy in accessing and using space in a secure and safe environment.   -Strengthening Europe’s role as a global actor  Regulation Specific Objectives - provide long-term, state-of-the-art and secure positioning, navigation and timing services whilst ensuring service continuity and robustness (Galileo and EGNOS) - deliver accurate and reliable Earth observation data, information and services, to support the formulation, implementation and monitoring of policies and actions (Copernicus). - enhance capabilities to monitor, track and identify space objects and space debris (SST). - provide SWE services.  - map and network Member States’ capacities (NEO). - ensure the long-term availability of reliable, secure, and cost-effective satellite communications services (GOVSATCOM). - foster the development of a strong Union space economy, including by supporting the space ecosystem and by reinforcing competitiveness, innovation, with particular regard to SMEs - foster entrepreneurship, skills and capacity building, start-ups or natural and legal persons - support an autonomous, secure and cost-efficient capability to access space      Results Galileo, EGNOS, Copernicus, SSA, GOVSATCOM implemented in an effective and efficient way, the services are provided in a continuous, secure, and robust way and users are satisfied.  Input Operational budget (EUR 14 Bn) for space activities combined with administrative budget (Commission and EUSPA staffing)  Activities satellite manufacturing, launches, operation of satellites, operation of antennas Regulation General Objectives - provide secure space-related data - maximise the socio-economic benefits  - ensuring synergies and complementarity with the Union’s research and technological development activities carried out under Horizon Regulation - enhance the safety and security and reinforce the autonomy of the Union - promote the role of the Union as a global actor in the space sector - supporting global initiatives including with regard to sustainable development  - enhance the safety, security and sustainability of all outer space activities pertaining to space objects and debris proliferation, as well as space environment Outputs Final products, signals and applications available for end-users  Impacts Enviromental monitoring Smart agriculture More competitve SMEs Natural disaster management Stronger EU international role, contribution to UN SDGs etc.  mpacts Fuels savings and less traffic congestion, Reliabilty of oil and gas infr 
 
 
 
The  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  Regulation  are  included  in  article  4.  The 
intervention  logic  then  illustrates  how  the  financial  and  human  inputs,  hence  the 
budget  and  the  different  implementing  parties,  support  the  implementation  of  several 
activities that lead to concrete and measurable outputs, based on the Regulation and the 
tasks  entrusted  via  various  Contribution  Agreements  (see  Section  3).  The  intended 
outputs  of  the  intervention  are  a  synthesis  of  the  work  done  by  the  Commission, 
EUSPA, ESA and the other entrusted entities for the provision of the services and their 
uptake,  and  the  monitoring  and  update  of  the  user  needs.  The  Regulation  and  the 
contribution  agreements  also  established  several  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs) 
toward  which  assess  them.  Lastly,  the  intervention  logic  considers  external  factors 
(described in Session 3) that must be taken into account in the evaluation.  

In addition to providing an understanding of the Regulation, the intervention logic serves 
as  a  basis  to  assess  whether  the  intended  objectives  of  the  intervention  have  been 
achieved and identify any shortcomings in the causal chain. 

While  the  Commission  is  the  overall  responsible  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Programme, the Regulation, under Title IV ‘Governance of the Programme’ (Articles 
from 26 to 32), provides for a clear distribution of roles, responsibilities and tasks among 
several implementing entities, as described in Section 2. 

The governance – understood as the mechanism whereby the investing organisation (the 
Commission)  exerts  financial  and  technical  control  over  the  deployment  of  the 
Programme  and  the  realisation  of  the  objectives  towards  the  implementing  actors 
(entrusted  entities)  -  is  not  a  self-standing  objective,  but  rather  a  tool  for  the 
implementation of the Programme. In this respect, the governance is defined through the 
Financial  Framework  Partnership  Agreement  (FFPA)  setting  up  the  framework 
conditions  to  entrust  tasks  through  several  contribution  agreements  to  the  different 
entrusted  entities,  thus  defining  roles  and  responsibilities  of  each  entity,  budget 
allocation, activities, objectives, expected results and target, when applicable.  

Moreover, while assessing the Programme, the evaluation covers the performance of all 
the  entrusted  entities  in  the  implementation  of  their  tasks,  including  EUSPA  delegated 
tasks,  while  its  core  tasks’  implementation  is  assessed  in  Section  5  (Performance  of 
EUSPA). In the Section 4.1 (Effectiveness), the  contribution  of each entrusted entity  is 
clearly identified. 

As  explained  later  in  Section  3,  the  market  and  users  uptake  of  EU  space  data  and 
services, is assessed as part of the EUSPA’s performance, while a more comprehensive 

11 

 
 
SWD  on  EU  Space  Programme  User  Uptake  Status12  and  a  Strategy  on  Space  Data 
Economy13 are under preparation. 

Finally, the Regulation brings under a single legal framework different EU space former 
programmes  and  initiatives  (now  called  components),  but  given  the  difference  of 
management,  governance,  users  and  output  of  the  different  components,  the  evaluation 
tackles each component separately, while providing an overall assessment of the impact 
of the Programme. 

Needs 
identified in 
the Impact 
Assessment 

-  Global  challenges  due  to  growing  populations,  increased  demand 
for  natural  resources  and  climate  change  require  accurate  and 
timely  information  about  our  planet  which  only  space-based 
solutions can provide.  

-  Digitalisation and new economy. 
-  Security of infrastructure ad Union’s autonomy.  
-  Ensure  competitiveness  of  EU  ecosystem 

tough 
competition from traditional, emerging, and new space powers and 
industrial actors.  

towards 

Needs 
identified in 
the Space 
Strategy (2016) 

Objectives 
(Art. 4 of the 
Regulation) 

-  Specific  problems,  lesson  learnt,  and  recommendations  are 

identified for each component. 

-  Maximising the benefits of space for society and the EU economy.   
-  Fostering  a  globally  competitive  and  innovative  European  space 

sector.   

-  Reinforcing Europe’s autonomy in accessing and using space in a 

secure and safe environment.   

-  Strengthening  Europe’s  role  as  a  global  actor  and  promoting 

international cooperation. 

1.  Provision of space-based data information and services 

-  To  provide  long-term,  state-of-the-art  and  secure  positioning, 
timing  services  whilst  ensuring  service 

navigation  and 
continuity and robustness (Galileo and EGNOS) 

-  To  deliver  accurate  and  reliable  Earth  observation  data, 
information  and  services  integrating  other  data  sources, 
supplied  on  a  long-term  sustainable  basis,  to  support  the 
formulation, implementation and monitoring of the Union and 
its  Member  States’  policies  and  actions  based  on  user 
requirements (Copernicus). 

-  To  enhance  capabilities  to  monitor,  track  and  identify  space 
objects and space debris with the aim of further increasing the 
performance and autonomy of capabilities (SST). 

-  To provide SWE services.  
-  To map and network Member States’ capacities (NEO). 
-  To  ensure  the  long-term  availability  of  reliable,  secure,  and 
services 

communications 

cost-effective 

satellite 

12 EU Space Users Needs - EU Agency for the Space Programme 

13 Strategy on Space Data Economy 

12 

 
 
(GOVSATCOM). 

2.  Fostering the EU upstream and downstream space sector 

-  Supporting 

the 
competitiveness, 
capacity, with particular regard to SMEs and start-ups  

space  ecosystem  and  by 
reinforcing 
innovation,  entrepreneurship,  skills  and 

-  Promote the uptake of EU space data and services. 
-  Enhance EU autonomy, in particular in terms of technology 
-  To  support  an  autonomous,  secure,  and  cost-efficient 
capability  to  access  space,  taking  into  account  the  essential 
security interests of the Union. 

-  Promote the Union as a global actor in the space.   
-  Enhance  the  safety,  security,  and  sustainability  of  space 

activities.   

1.  Financial: EU budget for the Space Programme  
2.  Human:  Commission,  EUSPA,  ESA,  entrusted  entities  and 
Member States resources, knowledge, and expertise 
Defined in the Regulation for each component (Article 44 to 69) and 
for horizontal activities in Article 6 and entrusted through contribution 
agreements 
to  entrusted  entities  (e.g.,  satellite  manufacturing, 
launches, operation of satellites, operation of antennas). 
Each  component  provides  several  space-based  data  and  services  in  a 
reliable, uninterrupted, and accurate way.  
Horizontal  activities  on  competitiveness  and  SME’s  participation 
(e.g., CASSINI initiative). 
1.  Users:  Core  and  non-core  users  of  the  different  components,  as 
defined in the Regulation  
2.  Stakeholders: industry, academia, research centre, NGO, etc  
3.  Beneficiaries: citizens, industries, academia, etc 

response.  Copernicus  provides  valuable  data 

The  Programme  components  are  implemented  in  an  effective  and 
efficient  way,  the  services  are  provided  in  a  continuous,  secure,  and 
robust way and users are satisfied. 
The  Programme  has  enabled  better  monitoring  and  management  of 
natural  resources,  as  well  as  improved  environmental  protection  and 
disaster 
for 
environmental  monitoring,  climate  change  research,  and  natural 
disaster  response,  aiding  in  the  protection  of  ecosystems  and  the 
mitigation  of  environmental  risks.  The  number  of  Galileo  users  is 
growing  with  more than 3.9 billion  devices  in  use by 2023. Users of 
Galileo and EGNOS includes users in agriculture, aviation and drones, 
consumer  solutions,  emergency  management,  fisheries,  forestry, 
maritime,  rail,  public  transport,  and  automotive  sectors  and  others. 
Creation  of  new  markets  and  opportunities  for  a  wide  range  of 
enterprises,  in  particular  small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs).  EU 
international role on space is reinforced, including the contribution to 
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).  
-  Brexit  
-  Covid   
-  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  

13 

Inputs 

Activities 

Outputs 

Users, 
stakeholders, 
and 
beneficiaries 
Results 

Impact 

External 
Factors 

 
-  Disruption of global supply chains  
-  Shortage of launch services   
-  Economic recession   
-  High levels of inflation 

2.2.  Description of the intervention, its objectives and performance framework 

2.2.1.  Needs  

The EU has been developing its own space initiatives and programmes since the 1990s 
and  is  one  of  the  world  leaders  in  space.  To  ensure  continuity  to  the  services  provided 
since several decades, and in order to keep and develop its capabilities in an increasingly 
uncertain geopolitical environment and to preserve Europe’s leadership, competitiveness, 
sustainability and autonomy, investing in space remains a priority. 

The EU space policy and the Programme are critical for the strategic autonomy of the EU 
and  its  Member  States  and  to  support  the  EU’s  political  priorities,  in  particular  the 
European Green Deal, the Digital Transition, the EU's resilience, and the EU role in the 
global dimension. The Programme enables solutions to tackle global challenges such as 
sustainability and climate change, safety and security, natural disasters and mobility and 
strengthens  the  EU's  role  on  the  international  scene  as  a  global  space  power.    With  an 
evolving  geopolitical  context  and  new  competition  (and  possible  threats)  from  third 
countries,  the  Union's  autonomy  of  action  becomes  even  more  critical,  in  all  areas  that 
are key for security and defence, in particular in space. In addition, it effectively provides 
cutting-edge data and services for areas like Artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles 
and  smart  solutions,  enhance  security  through  critical  infrastructure  monitoring  and 
provide key data to prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters. The Programme plays a 
crucial role in addressing cross-cutting policy topics by fostering innovation, resilience 
and competitiveness of EU companies.  

The  political  commitments  enshrined  in  the  2016  Space  Strategy  for  Europe  were 
reflected  in  the  subsequent  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  accompanying  the  Commission 
proposal  for  the  Space  Regulation  that  recognized  the  benefits  of  navigation  and  Earth 
observation programs such as Galileo, EGNOS, and Copernicus, as well as the EU SST 
initiative, requiring continuity of space-based services. 

The IA identified global challenges such as increased demand for natural resources due 
to growing populations and climate change. These challenges require accurate and timely 
information  about  the  planet,  which  can  be  provided  by  space-based  solutions.  Space 
serves  as  a  crucial  public  investment  in  addressing  priorities  like  sustainable  resource 
management,  climate  change  mitigation,  emergency  response  support  through  Earth 
observation (Copernicus), and enabling smart transport systems and precision agriculture 
through  Global  Navigation  Satellite  Systems  (EGNOS  and  Galileo).  The  IA  also 
emphasized the importance of secure satellite communications for public security actors 

14 

 
 
 
and  protecting  vital  space  infrastructure  against  space  debris  and  space  weather  events 
through a Space Situational Awareness program. 

In  terms  of  competitiveness,  the  European  space  industry  is  facing  tough  competition 
from  traditional,  emerging  and  new  space  powers  and  industrial  actors.  Moreover,  the 
business  environment  is  shifting  focus  from  infrastructure  to  applications  and  services. 
This  puts  the  European  industry  under  pressure  (from  launchers  to  satellites  to 
downstream  service  providers).  These  economic  and  business  shifts  constitute  a  major 
driver of change for the sector which calls for the need for EU-level intervention in order 
to  accompany  this  transition  and  allows  a  smooth  and  balanced  transformation  of  the 
sector. 

2.2.2.  Objectives and performance framework 

The  Regulation  defines  for  the  Programme  general  and  specific  objectives.  In  order  to 
measure  the  progress  towards  these  objectives,  the  Regulation  also  defines  indicators. 
The  progress  against  the  indicators  is  tracked  through  the  Programme  Performance 
Statements14 which are published every year. Further technical and budgetary indicators 
have been defined by the Commission in contribution agreements with entrusted entities 
and are also tracked through internal annual reporting.  

As general objectives, the Programme provides, maintains, and promotes the use of EU 
space  data  and  services  to  support  the  EU’s  political  priorities.  It  also  fosters  the 
development  of  European  space  industry,  enhances  the  security  of  the  EU  and  its 
Member  States,  reinforces  autonomy  in  areas  of  strategic  importance  and  promotes  the 
role of the EU as a strong global space actor. 

The  general  objectives  are  further  translated  into  specific  ones:  to  provide  positioning, 
navigation  and  timing  services;  to  deliver  Earth  observation  data,  information  and 
services; to monitor, track and identify space objects and space debris; to provide space 
weather services and to map and network Member States’ capacities; to ensure satellite 
communications  services  for  governmental  users;  to  support  an  autonomous  access 
space; to foster the development of a strong Union space economy.  

2.2.3.  Input  

The Programme has a total budget of EUR 14.88 billion for the period from January 1, 
2021, to December 31, 2027. This budget is allocated as follows: EUR 9.017 billion for 
Galileo and EGNOS, EUR 5.421 billion for Copernicus, and EUR 0.442 billion for SSA 
and GOVSATCOM each. Its implementation is constantly monitored and reported. 

14 Programme Performance Statement 

15 

 
 
 
The Programme is  implemented by the Commission,  EUSPA, ESA and other entrusted 
entities referred to in the Regulation. The Commission has overall responsibility for the 
Programme,  managing  and  overseeing  the  implementation  of  all  activities  on  behalf  of 
the EU. 

EUSPA is in charge of the security of the Programme that includes security accreditation 
of all components  of the Programme, through the Security Accreditation Board (SAB). 
EUSPA is also responsible for the operational security of Galileo and EGNOS, which is 
provided through the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre, (GSMC) and for the provision 
and  delivery  of  the  Galileo  Public  Regulated  Service  (PRS)  for  governmental  users. 
Another  key  part  of  work  of  EUSPA  is  communications,  market  development  and 
promotion of Galileo and EGNOS, and of the data, information and services offered by 
Copernicus  without  prejudice  of  activities  performed  by  entrusted  entities  and  the 
Commission. 

In line with Article 28.4 of the Regulation, the Commission, EUSPA and ESA signed in 
June  2021  a  FFPA  defining  the  roles,  responsibilities,  and  obligations  of  the 
Commission, EUSPA and ESA with regard to each of the Programme’s components and 
necessary  coordination  and  control  mechanisms.  This  Framework  Agreement  was 
followed  by  three  contribution  agreements  entrusting  specific  tasks  and  budget  to 
EUSPA and ESA. 

In  case  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  the  Commission  has  delegated  the  operational 
management  of  the  programme  to  EUSPA,  which  oversees  how  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
infrastructure  is  used  and  ensures  that  services  are  delivered  as  planned  and  without 
interruption. Galileo's and EGNOS design, deployment, evolutions of the system and the 
technical development of infrastructure are entrusted to ESA. 

For the implementation of Copernicus, the tasks entrusted to ESA include coordinating 
the  space  component  and  its  evolution,  designing,  developing,  and  constructing  the 
Copernicus  space  infrastructure,  including  its  operations  and  related  procurement,  and 
where  appropriate,  providing  access  to  third-party  data.  EUSPA  is  entrusted  to  support 
the  development  of  downstream  and  integrated  applications  based  on  Copernicus.  The 
Commission  also  signed  contribution  agreements  with  following  entrusted  entities: 
EUMETSAT, EEA, MOI, ECMWF, EMSA, FRONTEX. 

For  the  SSA  component,  EUSPA  was  entrusted  to  support  the  Commission  as  far  as 
project management and technical matters are concerned, in particular in preparation of 
the operational users’ management/coordination, while ESA is with tasks in the area of 
space weather and NEOs such as mapping Member States’ capabilities for detecting and 
monitoring  NEOs,  establishing  and  maintaining  a  European  NEO  catalogue  or 
elaborating user needs and service quality criteria regarding the space weather. 

Regarding  GOVSATCOM,  EUSPA  has  been  entrusted  with  the  procurement  and  the 
setting-up of the secure operational ground segments (GOVSATCOM Hubs), in addition 
to other tasks related to support for the definition of technical requirements, downstream 

16 

 
activities and for security related activities.  ESA has been entrusted with a set of system 
studies and upstream research and development activities for satellite communication key 
technological building blocks.  

2.3.4 Activities 

The activities linked to each component are defined in several Articles of the Regulation 
(Articles  44  to  69  and  Article  6  for  horizontal  activities  in  support  of  the  space 
ecosystem).  Different  tasks  are  entrusted  to  the  various  implementing  actors  (EUSPA, 
ESA, entrusted entities) through several contribution agreements, as listed in section 3. 

The Regulation also includes several actions implemented by a wide range of entities and 
tools  (Commission,  EUSPA,  ESA,  European  Investment  Fund,  and  others)  to  boost  a 
competitive  and  innovative  EU  space  ecosystem  and  build  synergies  with  other  EU 
programmes,  such  as  the  In  Orbit  Demonstration/In  Orbit  Validation  (IOD/IOV) 
service15 or the Cassini Space Entrepreneurship initiative (Cassini)16, that are covered 
by the evaluation. 

2.2.5 Outputs 

Each component of the Programme delivers or will deliver several space-based services, 
with unique features and application. 

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (Galileo and EGNOS) 

•  Galileo Open Service (OS), free of charge for positioning, navigation, and timing. 
•  Galileo High Accuracy Service (HAS) for added-value high precision services (in 

a different frequency band then the OS). 

•  Galileo  Public  Regulated  Service  (PRS)  restricted  to  government-authorised 
users, for sensitive applications that require a high level of service continuity and 
resilience. 

•  Galileo contribution to the Search and Rescue (SAR) system to quickly locate and 

help people in distress. 

•  Galileo Emergency  Warning  Satellite  Service (EWSS) to  alert  the population in 
case of a looming disaster (fire, storm, floods, tsunamis, volcano, industrial etc). 
•  Galileo  Open  Service  Navigation  Message  Authentication  (OSNMA)  to  deliver 
authenticated data, assuring users that the received Galileo navigation message is 
coming from the system itself and has not been modified. EGNOS Safety-Of-Life 
service for aviation (free of charge) including an integrity message alerting users 
to any failure in Global Positioning System (GPS) or Galileo signals.  

15 In-Orbit Demonstration and Validation (IOD/IOV) 

16 Space Entrepreneurship Initiative - CASSINI 

17 

 
 
•  EGNOS  data  access  service,  free  of  charge,  providing  EGNOS  information 

through terrestrial means. 

Earth Observation (Copernicus) 

•  Copernicus Services, providing information in order to satisfy public sector needs 

and those arising from the Union’s international commitments: 
•  Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS)  
•  Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS)  
•  Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS)  
•  Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)  
•  Copernicus Emergency Management Service (Copernicus EMS)  
•  Service for Security applications  

•  Copernicus data: 

•  are  available  and  accessible  to  any  citizen,  and  any  organisation  around 
the world  mainly  on a free, full, and open basis through different  digital 
platforms  (Copernicus  Open  Access  Hub,   Data  Store,  EUMETCast, 
Copernicus Space Component Data Access, DIAS.) 

Space Situational Awareness (SSA) 

•  SST services17: 

•  Collision  Avoidance  -  Provides  risk  assessment  of  collision  between 
spacecraft or between spacecraft and space debris and generates collision 
avoidance alerts. 

•  Re-entry  Analysis  -  Provides  risk  assessment  of  uncontrolled  re-entry  of 
man-made space objects into the Earth’s atmosphere and generates related 
information. 

•  Fragmentation  Analysis  -  Provides  detection  and  characterisation  of  in-

orbit fragmentations, break-ups, or collisions. 

•  SWE service  

•  election of one Space Weather Service 

•  NEO services 

•  Establishing and maintaining a European NEO catalogue 

Governmental Satellites Communication (GOVSATCOM) 

To provide governmental satellite communication to identified institutional users.  

2.2.6 Users, Stakeholders, and Beneficiaries 

17 SST services are provided upon request to all EU Member States, the European Council, the European 
Commission,  the  European  Union’s  External  Action  Service,  public  and  private  spacecraft  owners  and 
operators, and public authorities concerned with civil protection across the European Union. 

18 

 
 
The Programme's main users can be divided into two categories - public authorities and 
decision  makers  fall  into  the  first  category,  while  commercial  and  private  users  and 
others, such as researchers and nongovernmental organisations fall into the second. The 
Regulation  defines  also  explicitly  users  of  Copernicus,  SST  and  GOVSATCOM 
components.  Copernicus  users  are  split  between  Copernicus  core  users  (the  Union 
institutions  and  bodies,  as  well  as  European,  national,  or  regional  public  bodies  within 
the  EU  or  Copernicus  Participating  States)  and  Other  Copernicus  users  (research  and 
education  organizations,  commercial  and  private  bodies,  charities,  non-governmental 
organizations,  and  international  organizations  that  benefit  from  Copernicus  data  and 
information). SST users are divided between EU core users: Member States, the EEAS, 
the Commission, the Council, the Agency as well as public and private spacecraft owners 
and  operators  established  in  the  Union  and  EU  SST  non-core  users:  other  public  and 
private entities established in the Union, and international users. A GOVSATCOM user 
is  a  public  authority,  an  entity  entrusted  with  public  authority,  an  international 
organization,  or  a  natural  or  legal  person  responsible  for  overseeing  and  managing 
security-critical missions, operations, and infrastructures. 

The  stakeholders  of  the  Programme  are  the  numerous  actors  contributing  to  the 
Programme  or  who  benefit  from  space-based  services  including  industries,  researchers, 
commercial  users,  NGOs,  and  decision-makers.  Ultimately,  the  Programme  serves  a 
broad a non-measurable number of beneficiaries, as  EU citizens and industries, e.g., 
people using navigation  applications on their mobile phone without even know that the 
service is provided thanks to Galileo.  

2.2.7 Results &Impact 

The data and the services provided by the Programme are a public good, freely accessible 
to  all.  Results and  impact  are assessed in  the  evaluation  of the Programme towards the 
better regulation criteria: effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme aim to assess the 
results of the Programme, while the coherence, EU added value and relevance will serve 
to evaluate the impact. 

Galileo has surpassed all other constellation in terms of precision worldwide. Accuracy 
in  above  targets  (on  average  three  times  better  than  the).  The  overall  availability  of 
Galileo is close to the final target value (above 99%). Galileo users’ numbers increased 
over 3.9 billion a high satisfaction (82.35%). 

For  EGNOS  the  performance  of  the  service  has  gradually  improving.  It  was  slightly 
under target for external reasons (harsh space weather and closure of thrid-country sites). 
For  EGNSO  the  aviation  sector  is  the  largest  main  user,  covering  more  than  65%  of 
instrument runways, and above 27% of the airplane fleet by end of 2023. 

Copernicus  has  provided  data  and  services  with  reliability  and  continuity  above  targets 
(on  average  above  94.5%)  for  many  applications,  from  environmental  monitoring  and 
disaster  management  to  climate  change  adaptation  and  sustainable  urban  planning  with 
high satisfaction for users (above 85%). 

19 

 
The results and impacts of the rest of the Space Programme are difficult to highlight as 
long as the components are not operational, with the exception of SST (a sub-component 
of  SSA).  SST  has  steadily  increased  the  number  of  sensors  (up  to  40  including  radars, 
telescopes  and  laser  ranging  stations).  Its  user  numbers  also  increased  (above  200 
organisations) with more than 400 satellites registered to the collision avoidance service. 

2.2.8 External Factors  

In recent years, various factors such as the COVID19 pandemics and geopolitical events, 
such as Russian invasion in Ukraine or Brexit have caused significant changes in global 
trade patterns. These events have led to many unforeseen changes, as tensions and shifts 
in  trade  agreements,  a  limited  availability  of  energy  sources,  technologies  and  raw 
materials,  and  impacts  on  the  economy  (e.g.  raise  of  inflation).  As  a  result,  the  EU 
industries, including the ones in the space sector, have been greatly affected, hampering 
their ability to deliver as planned. For a detailed description of these external factors see 
Section 3.2.  

2.3.  Point(s) of comparison  

The  Commission’s  Programme  Performance  Statements  for  the  Space  Programme 
detail every year the baseline, annual implementation, and long term (2027) targets of the 
KPIs  annexed  to  the  Regulation  and  linked  with  the  Specific  objectives  of  the 
Programme.  It  clarifies  the  source  of  information  and  identifies  the  methodology; 
therefore it provides a  clear overview on the implementation  of the Programme and its 
components for the period 2021-2027. 

Given  the  differences  among  the  Programme’s  components  and  their  complex 
implementation,  the  Regulation  identifies  several  KPIs  for  each  component  with  a  few 
transversal KPIs, which are then monitored in the Programme Performance Statement. 

The main KPIs contained in the Programme Performance Statements are further detailed 
by  technical  and  management  KPIs  defined  in  the  FFPA  and  in  the  contribution 
agreements  (78  KPIs  for  Copernicus,  43  for  Galileo  and  ENGOS,  7  for  SSA,  6  for 
GOVSATCOM, 18 for Cassini) for which however no point of comparison is available. 
These  are  collected  through  regular  implementation  reports  and  serve  to  evaluate  the 
implementation  of  the  Programme  and  the  performance  of  the  entrusted  entities.  More 
information is available in Annex II. 

The  effectiveness  part  of  the  evaluation  takes  into  account  the  main  KPIs  of  the 
Programme Performance Statement where a point of comparison is available. For SWE, 
NEO  and  GOVSATCOM  where  the  main  KPIs  listed  in  the  Programme  Performance 
Statements  do  exceptionally  not  provide  for  a  point  of  comparison  given  that  these 
Programme’s components are not yet available, the analysis is based on the technical and 
management KPIs provided in the FFPA and in the contribution agreements which allow 

20 

 
 
to  track  progress  towards  the  establishment  of  services  for  SWE,  NEO  and 
GOVSATCOM. 

21 

 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1.  Current state of play 

The Commission has the responsibility for the overall implementation of the Programme, 
while  it  delegated  different  tasks  to  nine  entrusted  entities,  through  contribution 
agreements:  EUSPA,  ESA,  EUMETSAT,  ECMWF,  MOI,  EMSA,  FRONTEX,  EEA, 
SATCEN18. All of them have performed the tasks assigned within the budget allocated. 

The implementation of the contribution agreements allows the provisions of a wide range 
of  services  and  data  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  Programme  and  satisfy  the  users’ 
needs. 

For Galileo, EGNOS, Copernicus and SST some operational services have been provided 
to  the  users  seamlessly,  bridging  with  the  previous  MFF,  while  new  features  will  be 
provided  under  this  MFF.  The  NEO,  SWE  and  GOVSATCOM  services  are  under 
preparation. 

As  regards  EUSPA,  in  accordance  with  Article  29  of  the  Regulation,  its  tasks  were 
significantly  expanded  as  compared  to  the  previous  MFF.  The  Agency  was  originally 
dealing  mostly  with  satellite  navigation,  while  now  EUSPA  essentially  became  the 
“operational arm” of the EU for the implementation of the EU Space Programme. Its core 
and  entrusted  tasks  now  range  from  managing  the  full  exploitation  and  operational 
security  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS,  the  security  accreditation  of  all  components  of  the 
Programme  (Galileo,  EGNOS,  Copernicus,  GOVSATCOM  and  SSA),  to  undertaking 
communication,  promotion  and  market  development  as  well  as  downstream-related 
activities without prejudice to the activities performed by other entrusted entities and the 
Commission.  

3.2.  New developments in the period covered by the evaluation 

Several  developments  arose  during  the  evaluation  period,  all  having  an  impact  on  the 
implementation of the Programme: Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, Russian invasion to 
Ukraine and geopolitical context of increasing power competition and intensification of 
threats  to  both  to  the  EU  and  the  Member  States.  The  Programme  has  proven  to  be 
resilient to these as reported in the table below, while a detailed analysis is provided in 
the effectiveness section. 

18  The  Agreement  was  signed  in  July  2023  and  implementation  of  tasks  by  SATCEN  was  not  assessed 
since there were no results available immediately. 

22 

 
 
 
 
External factor 
Brexit 

Affected component  Ongoing  Comment 
Copernicus 

No 

COVID 

EGNOS 

No 

Russian  invasion  to 
Ukraine 
Chipset shortage 

Galileo 

Galileo 

Yes 

No 

Relocation of one Copernicus 
data centre from UK to Italy. 
Uncertainty regarding 
Copernicus budget 
Slowed down deployment, 
(reduced system accuracy as 
consequence), see details in 
Section 4.1.1.B 
Launcher  crisis,  see  details  in 
Section 4.1.1.A 
Slowing down the 
manufacturing of second 
generation satellites, however, 
not critical as long as the first 
generation launches are 
completed 

The COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 and the high infection rate and death toll led to 
large  scale  lockdowns  that  effectively  closed  many  sectors  of  the  economy  for  long 
periods  of  time  and  stopped  trade  of  goods,  drastically  straining  the  global  supply 
chains, including in a space sector where many beneficiaries were unable e.g., to procure 
hardware or perform testing.  

It  also  contributed  to  high  levels  of  inflation  due  to  both  price  increase  in  different 
sectors  such  as  in  the  energy.  The  application  of  current  EU  procurement  rules  in 
adjusting  to  changing  economic  conditions  and  prices  over  the  course  of  multi-year 
contracts could have negative impact on the European space industry. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine further contributed to the disruptions in space global 
supply  chains.  In  addition,  launch  services  for  Galileo  satellites  with  Soyuz    from  the 
French  Guyana  space  port  (Kourou)  have  been  suspended,  further  to  unilateral 
withdrawal  of  Roscosmos  (subcontracted  by  Arianespace).  This  situation  led,  together 
with  some  industrial  delay,  to  the  temporary  unavailability  of  qualified  European 
launcher  to  deploy  Galileo  satellites  in  the  planned  timeframe.  In  order  to  secure  the 
continuity  of  the  Galileo  constellation,  the  Commission  had  to  exceptionally  resort  to 
alternative  launch  provider  (SpaceX)  securing  two  launches  of  four  first  generation 
Galileo  satellites  in  2024.  The  entry  into  service  of  Ariane  6  is  expected  restore  the 
autonomous access to space for Galileo.  

The  rapid  evolvement  of  the  international  system  with  geopolitical  shifts  like  regional 
conflicts,  terrorism,  cyber  threats,  growing  migration  pressures  and  destabilisation 
strategies  featuring  cyber  warfare  and  disinformation  has  been  affecting  the  EU  more 
systematically. The adoption of the Regulation and the establishment of a dedicated EU 
GOVSATCOM  and  a  SSA  components  constituted  a  first  step  towards  improved 

23 

 
resilience. After the entry into force of the Regulation new initiatives have been adopted 
in order to further strengthen the resilience and autonomy of the EU in the space domain 
(e.g. IRIS2). 

Regarding  GOVSATCOM,  several  recent  studies19  concluded  that  the  Union’s  current 
satellite  communication  assets  cannot  meet  new  needs  of  the  governmental  users 
regardless  the  latest  technical  progress  that  has  allowed  non-geostationary-orbit 
communications  constellations 
low-latency 
connectivity  services.  As  the  necessary  frequency  filings  have  been  currently  available 
within  the  EU,  this  has  presented  an  opportunity  to  address  the  evolving  needs  of 
governmental  users  by  developing  and  deploying  additional  infrastructure.  Therefore, 
building on GOVSATCOM, on 15 February 2022, the Commission presented a proposal 
for a Regulation establishing the Union secure connectivity programme for 2023-2027 
IRIS2, that was adopted on 15 March 202320. 

to  gradually  offer  high-speed  and 

In the current geopolitical context of increasing power competition and intensification of 
threats, EU leaders identified space as a strategic domain in the Strategic Compass21 and 
called  for  an  EU  Space  Strategy  for  Security  and  Defence22.  The  Strategy  aims  at 
protecting the EU’s space assets, defend its interests, deter hostile activities in space, and 
strengthen its strategic posture and autonomy. 

In light of an increasingly congested space, there is a compelling need to act in order to 
maintain  space  as  a  resource  for  future  generations.  Space  Traffic  Management  (STM) 
therefore aims at keeping space operations safe, space orbits usable, and space accessible 
for decades to come while ensuring and further fostering the competitiveness of the EU 
industry. Following up the already existing SSA activities,  the EU approach to Space 
Traffic  Management23  aims  at  enhancing  capabilities,  norms  and  engagement  while 
preserving  EU  interests  in  line  with  the  respective  competencies  of  the  Union  and  its 
Member States. 

On the 13th of September 2023, the President of the Commission presented Commission 
priorities  for  2024,  that  include  an  initiative  for  an  EU  Space  Law24,  to  provide  a 

19 Notably the European Networking for satellite Telecommunication Roadmap for the governmental Users 
requiring Secure, inTeroperable, InnovativE and standardiseD services (ENTRUSTED), a research project 
funded under the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme  as well as the “Building Blocks 
Towards a Secure Space Connectivity System” study (DEFIS/2020/OP/008). 

20 Regulation (EU) 2023/588 Establishing the Union Secure Connectivity Programme for the Period 2023-
2027 

21 Strategic Compass for Security and Defence 

22 JOIN(2023) on European Union Space Strategy for Security and Defence 

23 JOIN/2022/4 on An EU Approach for Space Traffic Management 

24 State of the Union 2023 

24 

 
 
common  framework  for  security,  safety,  and  sustainability  in  space  addressing  the 
growth in space activities and the rapid emergence of New Space. 

Brexit had only a minimal impact on the implementation of the Programme. The delay in 
the  decision  to  associate  the  United  Kingdom  to  the  Copernicus  component  created 
uncertainty  regarding  the  possible  allocation  of  certain  financial  resources  for  the 
Programme. In the case of Copernicus, the migration of some operations from the UK to 
Italy due to Brexit led to some delays, however with no impacts on the services. 

Despite the work carried out to promote the adoption of EU Space data and services by 
the  market,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  published  in  2021  a  Special 
Report25 that pointed out  the missing of a single comprehensive strategy to support  the 
uptake of the EU Space data and services. According to the report, there is a need to 
precise  the  objectives  described  in  the  2016  Space  Strategy  by  setting  clear  goals  and 
priorities  for  the  maximisation  of  benefits  and  to  support  the  uptake  of  the  different 
components and to add KPIs to measure performance. 

The Report was followed by Council Conclusions on “EU space programmes Galileo and 
Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost”26 . The Conclusions 
welcomed the recommendations recalling the importance of the user uptake to EU space-
based  services  and  acknowledging  that  the  ECA  assessment  covered  the  period  before 
the entry into force of the Programme. In fact, the scope of the audit is a period starting 
from 2014 to mid-2020 and that during this period, the key effort of the Commission was 
to  put  in  place  the  necessary  space  and  ground  infrastructure  under  different  legal 
frameworks.  The  Programme,  for  the  first  time,  provides  a  common  framework  for  all 
space  data  and  services.  It  puts  more  emphasis  than  the  previous  regulations  on  the 
downstream sector, the market uptake and the exploitation of EU space data and services 
and  continues  to  recognise  the  role  of  EUSPA  for  promoting  the  market  uptake  of  EU 
space data and services, enlarging it to all the components of the Programme.  

The ECA proposed four recommendations, which the Commission accepted, whereby the 
Commission is working towards delivering on them: 

1.  By  2023,  to  develop  a  comprehensive  strategy  for  supporting  the  uptake  of  EU 

space services.  

2.  By 2024, to develop a conceptual framework for estimating the benefits of the EU 

space programmes and improve performance measurement, 

3.  By 2024, to ensure full readiness of Galileo and better targeted action on uptake 

of the EU space services, 

4.  By 2024, to ensure a better use the regulatory framework to support the uptake of 

EU space services. 

25 Special Report: EU Space Programmes Galileo and Copernicus 

26 Council conclusions on Special Report No 07/2021 from the European Court of Auditors 

25 

 
 
Following  ECA’s  recommendations,  the  Commission  is  preparing  a  Staff  Working 
Document on EU Space Programme User Uptake Status to present an analysis of the 
state of the play of the user uptake of Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus, as the basis and 
first  step  to  develop  a  Strategy  for  Space  Data  Economy  by  2024,  as  included  in  the 
letter of intent27 sent by the President of the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the  Council.  In  addition,  the  Commission  with  the  support  of  EUSPA,  finalised  a 
conceptual framework to measure the EU Space programme benefits. 

27 State of the Union 2023 – Letter of intent 

26 

 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS 

4.1.  To  what  extent  has  the  Space  Programme  been  successful  and  why? 

(Effectiveness, efficiency, coherence)  

Since  the  infrastructure,  governance,  services,  and  users  of  the  Programme  are  not 
homogenous,  the  evaluation  assesses  each  component  separately,  while  the  final 
conclusions and lesson learnt will tackle the Programme as a whole. 

The  sub-sections  below  (A  and  following)  detail  only  the  main  indicators  as  per  the 
Programme  Performance  Statement  in  order  to  have  a  clear  and  straightforward 
indication on the achievements of the objectives of the Programme, measured as per the 
indicators identified in the Regulation. The most important ones are: 

•  accuracy of the data and services (excellent for Galileo, EGNOS) 
•  continuity of the data and services (excellent for Galileo, good for EGNOS) 
•  number of users (very high for Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus) 
• 

the satisfaction of users (excellent for Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus). 

The trend is  positive for all indicators  as  detailed in  section 4.1.1.  More indicators and 
their evolution are available in Annex II. For NEO, SWE and GOVSATCOM there are 
no  operational  services,  therefore  we  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  component 
based  on  the  performance  of  the  entrusted  entities,  based  on  the  methodology  and 
evaluation matrix described in Annex II and III. 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness  

A.  Galileo effectiveness  

The objective of Galileo and EGNOS is to provide long-term, state-of-the-art, and secure 
positioning, navigation, and timing services. These services aim to offer high precision, 
reliability,  and  availability  to  meet  the  needs  of  various  users  across  numerous  sectors, 
while ensuring service continuity and robustness.  

Overall, the evaluation demonstrates that Galileo is delivering excellent performance and 
the  services  progress  towards  Full  Operational  Capability  (FOC).  Its  success  is  visible 
against the Programme Performance Statement values from 2021 and 2022. 

The achieved accuracy of navigation and timing services are already significantly better 
than the commitment. The primary goal for the future is to ensure that the level achieved 
is maintained in a stable manner. 

27 

 
The  indicator  "accuracy"  refers  to  the  proximity  of  the  receiver's  indicated  position,  as 
determined by the navigation system, to the actual location. The level of accuracy needed 
may  vary  between  services  or  applications  (for  a  typical  example  maritime  navigation 
can be achieved with lower accuracy than for the other means of transport). The overall 
availability  Galileo  services  almost  meets  the  final  target  value,  and  the  goal  for  the 
future is to ensure that the availability is maintained and stable.   

The indicator ’availability’ drops down from 100% as soon as an interruption is recorded. 

The main factor influencing accuracy and availability is the number of Galileo satellites 
in  service.  By  2027,  the  full  constellation  will  be  deployed  with  sufficient  ’spare’ 
satellites in orbit, thus guaranteeing the achievement of the targets. 

Galileo services were first declared in December 2016 with the OS, followed by the SAR 
Service. In addition, new unique services are being developed and delivered. This is the 
case for the HAS where initial service was declared on 24 January 2023 and is already 
providing a few decimetres accuracy worldwide. Finally, other new services are planned 
to be declared in the coming months and years, like Galileo’s OSNMA and EWSS. 

The implementation of PRS is currently in progress and is proceeding according to the 
established schedule, expected in 2024. Further efforts however are needed to ensure its 
roll-out  and  full  functionality.  To  mitigate  inherent  risks,  the  Commission  has  put  in 
place a risk management task force with EUSPA, involving ESA and all industrial actors 
to monitor progress and oversee the execution of the workplan.  

These  developments  pave  the  way  towards  robust  position,  velocity,  and  time 
information for Galileo users and in support of the EWSS that will alert the population in 
case of a looming disaster (fire, storm, floods, tsunamis, volcano, industrial etc). 

However, despite the efforts, FOC cannot be fully achieved. In fact, following Russia’s 
invasion  to  Ukraine  in  February  2022,  Roscosmos,  a  subcontractor  of  Arianespace, 
unilaterally  suspended  the  collaboration  with  European  partners  and  stopped  operating 

28 

 
Soyuz launchers  from  the French Guiana space port in  Kourou, leading  to a temporary 
unavailability launcher vehicle for Galileo satellites. This has no immediate consequence 
on  the  continuity  and  quality  of  the  Galileo  services,  however  as  some  satellites  are 
reaching design end of life, there is a potential risk to the service provision. To ensure the 
service  continuity  and  robustness,  the  Commission  had  to  exceptionally  resort  to  use  a 
different service provider to contract four of the first-generation Galileo satellites in 2024 
as described in Section 3.2.  

The EU user satisfaction with respect to Galileo is on an upwards trend and is expected 
to increase as shown below:  

The share of Galileo enabled receivers (the most common receivers are mobile phones 
which  incorporate  Galileo  chipsets)  in  the  worldwide  and  the  EU  Global  Navigation 
Satellite Systems receivers market is growing steadily and is expected to remain so: 

The  number  of  users  of  Galileo  is  growing,  with  82.35%28of  users  satisfied  with  the 
Galileo  performance.  Users  of  Galileo  are  from  the  agriculture,  drones,  consumer 
solutions,  emergency  management,  fisheries,  forestry,  maritime,  rail,  public 
transport  and  automotive  sectors  (more  details  can  be  found  in  the  EUSPA  Market 
Report29).  The  User  Consultation  Platform  regularly  collects  users’  needs  and 
requirements in view of new services or improvement of existing ones30.  

The  largest  number  of  Galileo  users  are  in  consumer  solutions.  3.9  billion  Galileo-
enabled  smartphones  had  been  sold  worldwide  by  February  2023,  while  the  number  of 
Galileo  receivers  is  higher.  The  second  largest  application  area  for  Global  Navigation 
Satellite System (GNSS) is road and automotive, where Galileo penetration is very high, 
with every car bought in Europe after 2019 having Galileo in their eCall emergency call 
system. In SAR, major manufacturers offer Galileo-enabled SAR beacons since 2018 and 

28 Galileo User Satisfaction Survey Report 2021  

29 EUSPA EO and GNSS Market Report 2022 

30 Reports on User Needs and Requirements  

29 

 
 
 
 
integrate  Return  Link  Service  since  2021.  Further  information  on  users  is  available  in 
Section 4.1.3 (Coherence). 

As  seen  before,  Galileo  services  are  provided  by  ensuring  the  access  to  the  users  of 
Galileo  service  with  minimized  number  of  incidents  that  are  dealt  quickly,  with  no 
consequences. As regards the security of Galileo, there are no issues to report. However, 
there  are  still  areas  for  improvement,  such  as  implementing  cyber  requirements, 
coordinating  accreditation  inputs,  and  defining  and  implementing  PRS  downstream 
activities. For the roll out of upcoming Galileo services, there are no expected delays as 
EUSPA  can  still  provide  the  services  at  the  expected  level  even  without  having  all  the 
planned  satellites  of  the  constellation  operational.  Regarding  the  development  and 
deployment  of  Galileo  infrastructure,  some  delays  in  the  component  were  reported, 
notably  in  the  space  segment.  As  the  delays  are  related  to  the  external  factors  like  the 
launch crisis, EUSPA has however limited control to mitigate these kinds of delays.  

Based  on  the  results  showed  above,  it  can  be  established  that  the  implementation  of 
Galileo  has  been  broadly  effective  between  2021  and  2023,  considering  the  global 
economic and political situation. 

B.  EGNOS effectiveness 

The main objective related of EGNOS is to provide reliable, secure, and state-of-the-art 
positioning and navigation, and timing services, ensuring continuity and robustness. 

Overall  EGNOS  is  demonstrating  strong  performance  and  making  good  progress  in  its 
services as visible against the Programme Performance Statement values from 2021 and 
2022: 

Accuracy is better than expected and already better than the 2027 target. However, some 
decrease was experienced in the last years, due to space weather (i.e., the increase of the 
solar  activity),  which  has  caused  some  service  performance  degradation.  Also,  the 
deployment  of  the  system  evolution  to  the  updated  version  EGNOS  V3  was  slightly 
postponed  due  to  industry  delays,  security  requirements  imposed  during  contract 
implementation and the COVID restrictions. However, an EGNOS evolution deployed in 
November  2023  largely  mitigates  the  observed  performance  issues  related  to  space 
weather. In addition, the service has been temporarily impacted at Europe’s South East’s 
borders  due  to  the  closure  of  two  sites  in  Egypt,  which  was  necessary  to  improve  the 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
resilience  of  the  system.  The  EGNOS  availability  and  continuity  between  2021  and 
2023 is  presented  in  the table below. Although slightly  under target, it is  expected that 
the release of EGNOS V.3 will bring the component back within the targets by 2027: 

The  performance  of  the  service  in  terms  of  coverage  is  gradually  improving  since  the 
EGNOS Safety-of-Life (SoL) service was first declared in 2011.  

EGNOS Safety of Life Service Definition 
Document v1 (March 2011) 

EGNOS  Safety  of  Life  Service  Definition 
Document v3.5 (November 2023) 

The  geographical  coverage  compliance  of  EGNOS  will  likely  be  reduced  in  the 
coming  years  where  there  will  be  the  solar  peak  of  cycle  25  (2023-2026)  and  then  an 

31 

 
 
 
 
improvement  is  expected  for  compliance  similar  to  the  target  in  2027  as  per  the  table 
below: 

The number of airports  where EGNOS  procedures are published  is  steadily  increasing 
with 497 airports and 935 approaches by the end of 2023 (this corresponds to around 
70% of all the EU instrument approaches).  

Since  the  Performance  Based  Navigation  Regulation31  mandates  implementation  of 
EGNOS approach procedures to all EU instrument approaches by 2024, the rates of 70% 
by end of 2023 show satisfactory progress for the implementation of EGNOS procedures. 
The Commission together with EASA are closely monitoring the full compliance to the 
Regulation, including infringement procedures if required. 

Overview of the airports with existing (green) or planned (yellow) procedures[1]: 

The trend is positive, and it is expected that by the end of this MFF all the EU instrument 
runway ends will have EGNOS as per the Programme Performance Statement: 

31 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/ 1048 

32 

 
 
 
 
For EGNOS receivers, the market share is already stabilised: 

In terms of EGNOS fleet equipage, around 27% of the fleet was equipped by end of 2023 
(according to information provided by operators in their flight plans to Eurocontrol). This 
follows  the  increase  from  the  past  years  in  the  number  of  aircrafts  equipped  with 
EGNOS. 

EGNOS equipage evolution. 
Source: EUROCONTROL 
PRISME Network Business 
Intelligence 

In  maritime,  EGNOS  supports  robust  and  safe  navigation,  with  a  penetration  in 
receivers’  models  above  90%  (recreational  and  regulated)  by  end  of  2023,  benefitting 
from EGNOS increased accuracy. The introduction of  receivers reached 100% by 2023 
in  merchant  vessels  satellite  navigation  equipment  (SOLAS-Safety  of  Life  at  Sea)  and 
89% in models for recreational vessels (non-SOLAS). 

The Programme is developing a specific EGNOS maritime service for merchant vessels 
(based on SBAS L1 and compliant with International Maritime Organisation Resolution 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
A.104632) to contribute to the safety of navigation. The corresponding standard for user 
receivers is IEC 61108-733.  

Agriculture  is  a  mature  EGNOS  user  for  guidance  applications  for  basic-value  crop 
cultivation  (e.g.,  cereals)  where  10-30cm  pass-to-pass  accuracy  is  adequate.  In  2022, 
93% of GNSS  receivers  in  agriculture are EGNOS enabled. For European tractors  it is 
estimated that more than 97% of new tractors sold are EGNOS enabled34. The use of 
EGNOS across a wide range of  applications (e.g., farm machinery guidance, automatic 
steering, as well as variable rate technology and asset management) allows the farmers to 
better monitor their harvest yields and perform effective in-field data collection, allowing 
them  to  increase  their  productiveness  and  to  lower  input  costs  whilst  at  the  same  time 
minimise the environmental impact of agriculture. 

EGNOS  is  also  being  used  in  surveying/geomatics  applications.  Data  gathered  by 
EUSPA35  since  2019  estimates  that  in  2023  ~98%  of  all  new  mapping  and  Geographic 
Information  System  grade  receivers  are  equipped  with  EGNOS.  EGNOS  provides  sub-
metre level accuracy removing the need for complex and costly equipment and is able to 
fulfil  the  accuracy  requirements  for  users  such  as  small  and  medium  municipalities, 
forestry and park management, etc. 

Overall user satisfaction is high. The trend is expected to be positive as the availability 
of the services will increase: 

EGNOS  is  implemented  through  delegated  tasks  to  EUSPA.  The  implementation  of 
tasks was evaluated  across  the following activities:  EGNOS service provision, security 
of the EGNOS component, development of new services, development and deployment 
of EGNOS infrastructure and support to Commission in international activities. 

As regards the provision of services, EUSPA is on track, although some targets are not 
met due to limitation in EGNOS V2. Some delays were observed in the implementation 
of tasks related to the security of EGNOS mainly because of the delay of the production 

32 Resolution A.1046(27), Worldwide Radionavigation System 

33  Maritime  navigation  and  radiocommunication  equipment  and  systems  -  Global  navigation  satellite 
systems  (GNSS)  -  Part  7:  Satellite  Based  Augmentation  Systems  -  Receiver  Equipment  -  Performance 
requirements and method of testing.  

34 2023 EUSPA market report  

35 Egnos Fact Sheet 

34 

 
 
 
of EUSPA documentation both for EGNOS V2 and V3. Regarding the development of 
new  services,  they  are  linked  with  the  implementation  of  EGNOS  V3,  therefore  the 
service is planned to be delivered beyond 2027. Most targets are on schedule regarding 
the deployment of the hardware of EGNOS. However, a postponement is expected for 
EGNOS V3 and its services, due to issues with site procurement and industry delays, that 
have been mitigated by EUSPA. 

C.  Copernicus effectiveness 

Copernicus  aims  at  providing  precise  and  dependable  Earth  observation  data, 
information, and services by integrating various data sources on a sustainable basis and 
to  support  the  development,  implementation,  and  monitoring  of  policies  and  actions  of 
the Union and its Member States, in accordance with user requirements.  

All targets as per Programme Performance Statement have been achieved: 

Targets  have  been  largely  exceeded  for  reliability,  availability,  and  continuity  for 
Copernicus and are, on average >94.5%36 and also for volume of data generated from 
the  Sentinels.  The  number  of  users  of  data,  products,  or  services  within  Copernicus  is 
either growing or is steady with user satisfaction greater than 85% across all services and 
above 94%  for  a majority of services.  As shown  above, the number of  registered users 
increased from 385 000 users 2020 to 638 000 in 2022, with the amount of Sentinel data 
generated being 6 800 Terabyte in 2022.  

The main factors influencing the indicators above are the number of satellites in service. 
By 2027 it is expected to have a comprehensive constellation of satellites and instruments 
plus one ‘expansion’, a satellite dedicated to CO2 emissions monitoring. 

36 For example, Sentinel-2 and Sentinel 5P reached 100%   

35 

 
 
 
Figure: Copernicus’s user uptake trend 

Figure: Users from Climate Change service 

Additionally,  new  unique  and  specific  products  as  for  example  the  leaf  area  index 
(normal  and  high  resolution)  are  being  developed  and  delivered  for  all  Copernicus 
services  as  expected.  New  products  based  on  policy  requests  are  implemented  by  the 
Copernicus services as fast as possible, but always requires a development and ramp-up 
phase. According with the Programme Performance Statement, in 2022 there was a slight 
decrease, but this is mainly due to the fact that several entrusted entities were releasing 
products  based  on  funding  from  the  previous  MFF  which  are  not  covered  by  this 
evaluation: 

36 

 
The number of information products vary from service to service and can be delivered in 
real  time,  as  a  forecast  or  over  a  pre-fined  series  of  time  (e.g  the  temperature  of  the 
ocean). 

The benefits  of Copernicus  are increasingly being  recognised by the public and private 
sectors.  The  Programme  effectively  started  implementing  dedicated  users  related 
activities  to  expand  the  use  of  Copernicus  in  business  and  commercial  applications 
(entrusted to EUSPA). This is reflected by the high involvement of industry at the User 
Consultation Platform (see Section 4.3 on relevance) and the participation of numerous 
start-ups and SMEs in the different Cassini initiatives with Copernicus based  solutions. 
The  implementation  of  the  entrusted  tasks  for  Copernicus  is  split  between  eight 
entrusted entities. Each entrusted entity was evaluated across multiple interventions that 
are  linked  to  the  above-mentioned  Copernicus  objectives,  both  on  the  deployment  and 
management of the infrastructure and the provision of services37.   

ESA  was  in  charge  of  developing  and  operating  the  space  component,  procuring 
launches,  managing  Sentinels and  Contributing  Missions  data, and ensuring  continuous 
and available data access for all Sentinel data. ESA successfully carried out most of the 
entrusted tasks without delays, in particular in the intervention areas of data access and 
distribution and user uptake. Related to data acquisition, one activity was delayed  due to 
the external factors:  the loss of one sentinel (Sentinel-1B38), plus the unavailability of the 
launcher for its replacement (Sentinel-1C). This has not led to any critical consequences 
as the service is provided by a third satellite (Sentinel-1A), still operational, however data 
is not available with the same latency.  The return into operations of the VegaC launcher 
will ensure the nominal deployment of satellites for Copernicus. 

EUSPA has been entrusted the implementation of activities related to the user uptake of 
data, market development, and capacity building, extension of the European GNSS User 
Consultation Platform to Other Copernicus users, and analysis of trends in user needs and 
requirements.  While  most  of  the  tasks  were  implemented  on  track,  the  kick-off  of  a 
project  on  Copernicus  demonstrators  was  delayed  due  to  a  high  number  of  proposals, 
with no impact the overall implementation. 

The  implementation  of  the  entrusted  tasks  by  other  entrusted  entities  (EUMETSAT, 
EEA,  MOI,  ECMWF,  EMSA)  is,  overall,  very  well  aligned  with  the  contribution 
agreements, and despite a few delays due to external political factors such as late signing 

37 Section 3.1.3 of the supporting Study 

38 Sentinel-1B had been launched on 25 April 2016 and malfunctioned in orbit on 23 December 2021 

37 

 
 
of  the  contribution  agreement,  there  were  no  serious  impacts  on  the  overall 
implementation, timeline, or budget of the Copernicus.   

D.  Space Situational Awareness Effectiveness  

The specific objectives  of SSA  is  to  enhance capabilities to monitor, track and identify 
space  objects  and  space  debris  with  the  aim  of  further  increasing  the  performance  and 
autonomy  of  capabilities  under  this  sub-component  at  Union  level,  to  provide  SWE 
services  and  to  map  and  network  Member  States’  capacities  under  the  NEO  sub-
component.  Its  performance  was  evaluated  through  KPIs,  i.e.,  the  number  of  users  and 
the  availability  of  services,  which  were  not  applicable  for  all  the  SSA  segments  since 
some services are not operational yet.  

Among  three  SSA  subcomponents  comprising,  SST  is  the  most  advanced  one,  since 
established  during  the  previous  MFF.  SST  capability  has  three  main  functions:  sensor, 
processing, and service provision.  

Funds from the previous MFF were used for SST in 2021 and 2022, therefore KPIs are 
reported only for 2023. 

For information, under the previous MFF funding, the KPIs were: 

2021 

Number of users 

Number of organisations 

38 

 
 
 
 
Collision avoidance 
Fragmentation 
Re-entry 

78 
193 
205 

35 
105 
111 

Collision avoidance 
Fragmentation 
Re-entry 

2022 

Number of users 
88 
271 
298 

Number of organisations 
42 
143 
176 

The network has added a new sensor every year (from 38 sensors in 2021 to 40 sensors 
today39)  including  radars,  telescopes  and  laser  ranging  stations.  SST  services  is 
performing  very  well  with  increased  number  of  registered  organisations  and  satellites. 
There are 402 registered satellites distributed as follows in different orbits: 156 in Low 
Earth Orbit, 58 in Mid Earth Orbit, in 188 Geostationary Earth Orbit40. 

As  regards  the  users,  there  is  a  total  number  of  191  registered  organizations  mainly 
operating at national or international scope with a strong focus on national entities and in 
particular  on  the  industry  sector  (out  of  191  registered  users,  83  are  from  the  industry 
sector)41. 

While the owners and/or operators are overall evenly distributed across all EU Member 
States  (1  to  4  operators  and/or  owners  for  each  country),  France,  Spain,  and  Germany 
each have twice as many. 

39 Number updated in July 2022. 

40 EU SST - About Us 

41 EU SST - About Us 

39 

 
 
 
 
EU SST Sensors Network (July 2022)42 

The  EU  SST  Partnership  Agreement43  officially  entered  into  force  on  11  November 
2022, forming the SST Partnership of 15 EU Member States44. With this Partnership, EU 
SST builds on the results achieved by the previous consortium of seven Member States 
and  ensures  continuity  of  activities  and  service  provision.  Considering  that  an  SST 
system is a network of ground-based and space-based sensors capable of surveying and 
tracking  space  objects,  together  with  processing  capabilities  aiming  to  provide  data, 
information and services on space objects orbiting around the Earth, the larger number of 
participating Member States, substantially increase SST observation and data processing 
capacities. 

The  responsibility  to  manage  and  operate  the  SST  Front  Desk45  was  transferred  on  1 
July  2023  from  SATCEN  to  EUSPA’s  GSMC  in  Madrid,  following  a  Commission’s 
Decision  of  3  June  2022.  As  the  establishment  of  the  new  EU  SST  Partnership  took 
longer  than  expected  due  to  the  expansion  of  EU  Member  States  from  7  to  15,  the 
transfer  of  the  Front  Desk  was  slightly  delayed.  However,  the  continuity  of  the  SST 
service  was  ensured  by  SATCEN,  which  worked  together  with  EUSPA  for  a  smooth 
transition.   

42 EU SST Sensors Network (July 2022) 

43 New EU SST Partnership of 15 Member States 

44  Austria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands, 

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden 

45 EUSPA, the new EU SST Front Desk 

40 

 
 
 
As regards for SWE and NEO, the tasks to fulfil are as follows: 

•  Mapping of Member States’ capabilities for detecting and monitoring NEOs. 
•  Promotion of the networking of Member States facilities and research centres.  
•  Establishing and maintaining a European NEO catalogue.  
•  Development  and  provision  of  rapid  expert  response  service  in  relation  to  new 

NEOs.  

•  Elaboration of user needs and service quality criteria.  
•  Pre-selection of space weather service for operational framework.  
•  Preparation  of  invitation  for  tender,  publication,  evaluation,  and  contract 

placement. 

Since  the  services  for  NEO  and  SWE  are  not  yet  operational,  the  completion  of 
Indicators as per the Programme Performance Statement is not applicable. 

For  the  SWE  sub-component,  there  were  some  initial  issues  related  to  setting  up  the 
implementation process of the new sub-component. This led to a delay in a study to be 
commissioned,  but  the  approach  to  mitigate  effects  was  put  in  place  and  therefore  not 
expected to have a cascading effect on other tasks. 

As for NEO sub-component, a first version of a map of Member States’ capabilities for 
detecting and monitoring NEOs with a full list of institutions and assets was compiled by 
the  ESA.  This  map  will  be  finalised  taking  into  consideration  several  Member  States’ 
feedback.  

E.  GOVSATCOM Effectiveness 

GOVSATCOM’ s objective is to ensure the long-term availability of reliable, secure, and 
cost-effective  satellite  communications  services  for  GOVSATCOM  users.  The 
Regulation  provides  that  the  GOVSATCOM  should  be  implemented  in  step-by-step 
approach.  In  the  period  of  the  evaluation  the  main  objective  was  to  prepare  the 
implementation of the GOVSATCOM component.  

41 

 
 
Visual representation of GOVSATCOM functioning (source: 2018 Impact Assessment) 

The  GOVSATCOM  indicators  of  the  Programme  Performance  Statement  cannot  be 
measured since the services are not yet operational. 

For  GOVSATCOM  several  tasks  have  been  split  by  contribution  agreements  between 
ESA and EUSPA. As for other components, a set of specific KPIs and criteria have been 
defined in the contribution agreements to assess  if the targets set have been met and to 
what extent.  

The result of the assessment is based on the Annual  Implementation Reports submitted 
by  ESA  and  EUSPA  and  interviews  with  three  representatives  from  ESA  and  four 
representatives from EUSPA. All activities have been performed on timely, the detailed 
list is provided in Annex II. 

Preparatory  activities  for  service  provision  have  been  implemented  effectively.  They 
focused  on  the  procurement  of  the  GOVSATCOM  hub46  operations  and  the 
determination of its location and the mapping of the availability of satcom resources hub. 
Despite  the  initial  delays  caused  by  the  setup  of  the  procurement  process  and  the 
definition  of  the  procurement  conditions,  EUSPA,  together  with  the  Commission 
managed  to  mitigate  this  risk  and  the  activities  are  currently  running  smoothly.  The 
innovation  partnership  contract  has  been  awarded  for  the  GOVSATCOM  Hub  in 
December 2023. This allows for the preparation of the Initial Service provision. 

46  The  GOVSATCOM  Hub  is  in  charge  of  monitoring  and  ensuring  the  overall  capacity  and  service 

planning as well as the security of the overall system. 

42 

 
 
 
F.  The Programme in support of the competitiveness of the EU space ecosystem  

The Programme has been a key contributor to the EU competitiveness on several fronts. 
Firstly,  it  has  provided  the  EU  with  strategic  autonomy  in  space,  reducing  the 
dependence  on  non-European  space  programmes  and  enhancing  the  EU's  ability  to 
operate  independently  in  space-related  activities  (see  Section  4.3  on  relevance).  The 
Programme  has  been  also  playing  a  significant  role  in  driving  innovation  and 
technological  advancement  within  the  EU.  This  has  not  only  bolstered  the  EU's 
technological  capabilities  but  has  also  supported  European  companies  as  leaders  in  the 
global space industry. Beyond the upstream industry, the EU’s space assets underpin the 
well-functioning  and  competitiveness  of  a  wide  range  of  economic  sectors,  from 
agriculture to fisheries, finance, emergency response, urban planning and others.  

including  by  supporting  space  ecosystem  and  by 

On  top  of  the  objectives  per  component,  the  Programme  has  a  specific  objective  in 
Article  4.2(f)  of  the  Regulation  “to  foster  the  development  of  strong  Union,  space 
economy 
the 
competitiveness, innovation, entrepreneurship, skills and capacity building in all Member 
States and Union, with particular regard to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-
ups  or  legal  and  natural  persons  from  the  Union  active  or  wishing  to  become  active  in 
that sector.” 

reinforcing 

The indicators provided in the Regulation for the evaluation of this specific objective are: 
1. Number and location of space hubs in the Union and 2. Share of SMEs established in 
the Union as a proportion of the total value of the contracts relating to the Programme. 

As regards the indicator on the “number and location of space hubs in the Union”, it is 
well on target as per the Programme Performance Statement. The baseline was set out on 
the basis of an ad-hoc study47. To be noted, the number of European Digital Innovation 
Hubs  is  counted  under  this  indicator  instead  of  Space  hubs  given  the  overlap  with  the 
wider  ICT  and  digital  industrial  ecosystem.  From  the  original  38  hubs,  we  can  count 
today 39848: 

Concerning  SMEs,  in  2020,  around  1800  SMEs  were  involved  in  ESA  and  EU  space 
projects,  generating  a  combined  annual  turnover  of  EUR  3.9  billion,  and  employing 

47 Mapping, Analysis and Characterization of Space Hubs in the EU, PwC, June 2019 

48 European Digital Innovation Hubs Network – EDIH Catalogue 

43 

 
 
 
 
approximately 33 000 individuals.49 As an example, between 2021 and mid-2023, SMEs 
participation in Copernicus significantly increased, accounting for 18.5% of the value of 
the contracts. This marks a notable rise from the 10% participation observed during the 
period  of  2014-2020.  The  European  Association  of  Remote  Sensing  Companies 
(EARSC) reported in 2023 that the overall European Earth Observation (EO) industry is 
comprised  of  772  companies  and  around  14  000  employees.  The  sector  is  highly 
dominated  by  SMEs,  with  approximately  96%  of  companies  having  less  than  50 
employees  and  66%  of  them  with  less  than  10.  Furthermore,  a  competitive  EO 
downstream sector has emerged dominated by SMEs. In fact, they do not require a large 
upfront  investment  in  resources  (human  or  material)  and  become  operational  very 
quickly.  

The Dynamic Purchasing System was a new method of purchasing complementary data 
to  complement  the  one  from  the  Sentinels.  The  system  was  designed  to  allow  easy 
entrance  of  start-ups  and  SMEs  into  the  tendering  process  and  proved  to  be  a  success 
(also by shortening the length of the tendering): Aerospacelab from Belgium, Prométhée 
from France and EnduroSat from Bulgaria supply multispectral images; Kuva Space Oy 
from Finland supply hyperspectral images; Constellr and OroraTech from Germany and 
Aistech  from  Spain  provide  thermal  infrared  data;  Satlantis  from  Spain  and  Absolut 
Sensing from France provide data on atmospheric composition. 

In addition, CASSINI is the European Commission’s initiative to support entrepreneurs, 
start-ups and SMEs in the space industry, including New Space, during 2021-2027. The 
initiative  is  open  to  all  areas  of  the  Programme,  and  covers  both  upstream  (nanosats, 
launchers  and  downstream  -  products/services  enabled  by  space  data,  etc.).  CASSINI 
includes a EUR 1 billion EU seeds and growth fund, hackathons and mentoring, prizes, a 
business accelerator, partnering and matchmaking. Thanks to CASSINI over 700 SMEs 
were provided support by the end of Q2 2023, with nearly 40 of them receiving venture 
investments totalling EUR 300 million (see Section 4.1.3 Coherence).  

Albeit it is not a part of the Programme but contributing to the space ecosystem, EUSPA 
Horizon  Europe  calls50  show  that  96  out  of  the  total  292  participants  were  SMEs, 
constituting  approximately  33%  of  the  total  participation.  From  budget  perspective,  a 
substantial budget of EUR 25.42 million out of a total budget of EUR 75.85 million was 
granted  to  SMEs.  This  substantial  investment  highlights  the  recognition  and  support 
given to SMEs, underlining their pivotal role in driving innovation and competitiveness 
within the EO and GNSS market sectors. 

49 ESA Business Boosts Small Space Companies 

50  HORIZON-EUSPA-2021-SPACE  (covering  the  period  2021-2022)  and  HORIZON-EUSPA-2022-

SPACE (encompassing 2022-2023) 

44 

 
 
Regarding  the  development  of  the  EU  space  ecosystem,  the  European  upstream 
segment reported EUR 8.2 billion in sales51, constituting 17.5% of the global market for 
upstream activities. Europe represents the 4th space power that produced 11% of global 
spacecrafts, where in first place were the Unites States, followed by China, then Russia52. 
A  third  of  the  world’s  satellites  is  estimated  to  be  manufactured  on  the  European 
continent,  with  around  EUR  9.5  billion  of  satellite  exports  registered  over  the  last  ten 
years  or  so  and  a  flourishing  global  commercial  satellite  market.  The  European  space 
industrial  supply  chain  employs  around  59  707  persons  including  supporting  personnel 
on site with more than 1 000 companies active in the upstream segment53. This industry is 
highly competitive in the global stage, as demonstrated by its positive contribution to the 
European  trade  balance.  Exports  of  cutting-edge  satellite  systems,  launch  services,  and 
equipment  and subsystems  created an  average net  surplus of  EUR 1 billion per year in 
2011-2020.  

Concerning  an  autonomous  access  to  space  and  the  EU  launchers  manufacturing 
industry,  the  Commission  purchased  in  2022  six  launch  services  with  VegaC  from 
Arianespace covering all the Copernicus needs for this MFF, with the aim of providing 
long term visibility and sustainability for the industry. However, after one successful test 
flight  (=maiden  flight),  the  VegaC  launcher  failed  during  a  launch  for  a  commercial 
customer  and  was  grounded  (it  is  expected  to  resume  Copernicus  launches  in  autumn 
2024).  

On  the  downstream  side,  according  to  EUSPA’s  stakeholder  consultations,  EUSPA  is 
monitoring 400-500 new startups and SMEs that are leveraging Galileo and Copernicus 
data for their business. The market size for Earth observation and satellite navigation is 
globally  reported  in  the  regular  EUSPA  Market  Reports.  These  values  can  be  used  to 
calculate  Europe’s  market  share  for  the  downstream  space  activities.  According  to 
EUSPA`s EO and GNSS Market report, issue 2, it has been estimated that for the Earth 
Observation,  Europe  (defined  as  EU27,  plus  Norway,  Switzerland  and  the  United 
Kingdom),  together  with  the  United  States,  has  remained  a  dominant  player  in  the 
commercial EO downstream market, accounting together for a market share of more than 
85%, with  each being  responsible for over 40%.  In this supply point-of-view analysis1 
downstream  EO  industry  is  organised  into  three  categories:  data  acquisition  and 
distribution,  data  processing,  and  analysis,  insights  &  decision  support.  The  first  two 
categories are led by North American companies measured in market share, with Europe 
in  second  place,  while  in  the  third  category  of  analysis,  insights  &  decision  support 
Europe leads with over 50% of the global market share, followed by North America with 
nearly a quarter. As regards GNSS, revenues from GNSS downstream market in Europe 

51 Eurospace Facts & Figures 

52 Ibid. 

53 Ibid. 

45 

 
 
have been estimated at the level of almost 25% in 2021. To complete the overview, the 
US maintains the largest portion of the market (over 30%), and by contrast, Japan, China 
and  South  Korea  combined  account  for  30%  of  the  global  market.  The  downstream 
GNSS  industry  is  split  into  three  categories:  components  and  receivers’  manufacturers, 
system integrators, and added-value service providers. 

Efforts  have  been  directed  towards  supporting  skills  development,  as  the  demand  for 
space-qualified jobs has created a competitive tension in the workforce market leading to 
growth in workforce costs, which, combined with other factors, has a certain impact on 
the  competitiveness  of  European  space  sector  on  a  global  scene.  In  order  to  encourage 
skills  development,  a  Pact  for  Skills  under  the  European  Skills  Agenda  aims  at 
supporting  public  and  private  organisations  through  the  green  transition  and  the  digital 
transition.  SPACE4GEO54,  the  recently  established 
large-scale  skills  partnership 
dedicated to space data, services, and applications, building on the  Erasmus+ EO4GEO 
Blueprint project, focuses on promoting the up-skilling and re-skilling of the workforce, 
while  attracting  new  talent.  A  new  blueprint  called  SpaceSUITE55,  funded  under 
Erasmus+ Alliances for innovation, is being developed under SPACE4GEO. In the Joint 
Communication  on  a  European  Union  Space  Strategy  for  Security  and  Defence,  the 
Commission  also  recognised  the  need  for  up-skilling  and  re-skilling  activities  to  meet 
industry demand, fill the future skills gap and increase women's participation, focusing in 
particular  on  space  for  security  and  defence.  A  number  of  ongoing  projects  funded  by 
Horizon Europe, such as ASTRAIOS, E-KNOT or GENIUS and Erasmus+, such as the 
European universities alliance UNIVERSEH56 support this objective. As a transnational 
alliance of universities from all across Europe, UNIVERSEH is working on the first pan-
European  high-level  teaching  and  research  programme  for  space.  Additionally,  the 
former  Copernicus  Academy  with  over  200  members  is  evolving  into  the  EU  Space 
Academy and the Commission is working with EUSPA to develop EU Space Academy 
Learning Platform, a free on-line course to improve skills and expertise in various fields. 

G.  General remarks on effectiveness of the programme towards its general 

objectives 

The  evaluation  underlined  that  the  Programme  proceeds  effectively  towards  its 
objectives,  with  services  provision  and  user  satisfaction  often  higher  that  the  expected 

54  SPACE4GEO  is  a  Large-scale  Skills  Partnership  for  the  downstream  segment  of  space  economy 

dedicated to data, services and applications promoted under the Pact for Skills initiative 

55 SpaceSUITE - SPACE downstream Skills development and User uptake through Innovative curricula in 
Training and Education” (2024) develops a program and innovative platform with the  aim to supply 
the  required  skills  and  curricula  to  achieve  the  goals  of  the  EU  in  the  aerospace  and  defence 
ecosystem. 

56 The UNIVERSEH European universities alliance has the goal to develop new joint interdisciplinary and 
cross-sectoral  curricula  and  to  become  an  entrepreneurial  university,  developing  new  common 
entrepreneurship courses adapted to European space sector. 

46 

 
 
targets,  as  shown  in  the  table  below.  In  addition,  it  also  shows  that  the  Programme 
provides  a  wide  range  of  benefits  in  different  sectors  and  to  the  European  Union  as  a 
whole, (more in section 4.1.3 on Coherence and in Section 4.2 on Relevance) as well as 
to  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  space  ecosystem.  Concerning  SMEs,  the  Programme 
has  supported  the  growth  of  SMEs  and  startups  in  the  space  industry,  creating  a  more 
diverse  and  competitive  landscape  within  the  EU.  The  Programme  has  facilitated 
collaboration  and  partnerships  between  SMEs  and  larger  companies  and  other 
stakeholders  in  the  space  sector,  allowing  them  to  access  expertise,  knowledge,  and 
resources that they may not have been able to access independently. In addition, SMEs 
have  been  able  to  access  funding,  resources,  and  technological  support  to  develop  and 
implement innovative space-related projects (e.g., thanks to the Cassini initiative). 

Most of the tasks the Commission assigned to the entrusted entities were carried out on 
time. In fact, the various entrusted entities among the components have managed to keep 
the timeline and generally meet ambitious performance goals.  

General objectives 
(Art.4.1) 
-  provide or contribute to 
the provision of high-
quality and up-to-date 
and, where appropriate, 
secure space-related 
data, information and 
services without 
interruption and 
wherever possible at 
global level, meeting 
existing and future 
needs and able to 
support the Union’s 
political priorities and 
related evidence-based 
and independent 
decision making, inter 
alia for climate change, 
transport and security; 

Specific objectives 
(Art.4.2) 
-  provide long-term, 
state-of-the-art and 
secure positioning, 
navigation and timing 
services whilst ensuring 
service continuity and 
robustness (Galileo and 
EGNOS) 

Completion of the 
objectives 
Galileo and EGNOS have 
provided reliable and secure 
positioning and navigation, 
and timing services, 
ensuring continuity and 
robustness as described in 
in sub-sections A and B 
above 

-  deliver accurate and 

reliable Earth 
observation data, 
information and 
services integrating 
other data sources, 
supplied on a long-term 
sustainable basis, to 
support the formulation, 
implementation and 
monitoring of the Union 
and its Member States’ 
policies and actions 

Copernicus has provided 
precise Earth observation 
data, information, and 
services by integrating 
various data sources on a 
sustainable basis. It has also 
supported the development, 
implementation, and 
monitoring of policies and 
actions of the Union and its 
Member States, in 
accordance with user 
requirements as described 

47 

 
in subsection C above 

SST is providing all 
services (collision 
avoidance, re-entry 
analysis, fragmentation 
analysis) as described in 
subsection D above 

Important advancements 
were made towards making 
the SWE and NEO 
operational as described in 
subsection D above 
GOVSATCOM services are 
not yet available but 
important advancements 
were made towards making 
the component operational, 
as described in subsection E 
above 
SMEs were successfully 
supported as described in 
sub-section F above 

Skills building actions were 
successfully performed as 
described in sub-section F 
above. 

- 

based on user 
requirements 
(Copernicus). 
enhance capabilities to 
monitor, track and 
identify space objects 
and space debris with 
the aim of further 
increasing the 
performance and 
autonomy of 
capabilities (SST) 
-  provide SWE services.  
-  map and network 
Member States’ 
capacities (NEO). 

- 

- 

ensure the long-term 
availability of reliable, 
secure, and cost-
effective satellite 
communications 
services 
(GOVSATCOM). 
to foster the 
development of a strong 
Union space economy, 
including by supporting 
the space ecosystem and 
by reinforcing 
competitiveness, 
innovation, with 
particular regard to 
SMEs 
H.  to foster 

entrepreneurship, skills 
and capacity building, 
start-ups or natural and 
legal persons 

48 

-  maximise the socio-

economic benefits, in 
particular by fostering 
the development of 
innovative and 
competitive European 
upstream and 
downstream sectors, 
including SMEs and 
start-ups, thereby 
enabling growth and job 
creation in the Union 
and promoting the 
widest possible uptake 
and use of the data, 
information and 
services provided by the 
Programme’s 
components both within 
and outside the Union 

 
 
No specific objective 
defined by the Regulation 

ensuring synergies and 
complementarity with 
the Union’s research 
and technological 
development activities 
carried out under 
Regulation (EU) 
2021/695 

- 

- 

enhance the safety and 
security of the Union 
and its Member States 
and reinforce the 
autonomy of the Union, 
in particular in terms of 
technology 

-  promote the role of the 
Union as a global actor 
in the space sector, 
encourage international 
cooperation, reinforce 
European space 
diplomacy including by 
fostering the principles 
of reciprocity and fair 
competition, and to 
strengthen its role in 
tackling global 
challenges, supporting 
global initiatives 
including with regard to 
sustainable development 
and raising awareness of 

- 

support an autonomous, 
secure and cost-efficient 
capability to access 
space, taking into 
account the essential 
security interests of the 
Union 

No specific objective 
defined by the Regulation  

Research for the next 
generation of Galileo 
chipsets is funded 
simultaneously by the 
Space Programme and 
Horizon Europe 
Calls in Horizon Europe 
were launched to ensure 
synergy with the 
components of the 
Programme (e.g. timing, 
drones, applications 
including clean energy, 
natural hazard mitigation, 
sustainability & smart 
mobility, biodiversity)  
Contracts with Arianespace 
as described in subsection F 
above, however, no 
launches57 have actually 
taken place due to external 
factors. 

Promoting the role of the 
EU as global actor since 
most data and services are 
available to world-wide 
users: 
-  Copernicus has become 

the top Earth 
observation programme 
in the world 

-  Galileo and EGNOS 

have established the EU 
as a strong and credible 
interlocutor in the field 
of transportation in 
relation with third-
countries. 
-  very important 

57  Without  counting  the  launch  of  Sentinel  6A  in  2021  which  was  paid  by  NASA,  and  the  Galileo  L11 

launch which was paid with funds from the previous MFF  

49 

 
 
No specific objective 
defined by the Regulation 

contribution of 
Copernicus and Galileo 
to UN SGDs as shown 
in Annex VII 

No action was taken under 
the Space Programme. 
However, Horizon 2020 has 
already financed several 
projects on this topic (e.g. 
REDSHIFT, ADR1EN, 
TeSeR, COMPASS, 
PULSAR) 

- 

space as a common 
heritage of humankind 

enhance the safety, 
security and 
sustainability of all 
outer space activities 
pertaining to space 
objects and debris 
proliferation, as well as 
space environment, by 
implementing 
appropriate measures, 
including development 
and deployment of 
technologies for 
spacecraft disposal at 
the end of operational 
lifetime and for space 
debris disposal 

The majority of the deviations are due to external causes. For instance, the unavailability 
of launchers impacted some of the Galileo and Copernicus activities, or unexpected space 
weather conditions affected EGNOS’s performance.  

The  high  inflation  and  the  chips  shortage  had  an  impact  on  the  industry  commitments. 
Limited flexibility of the EU procurement rules to adapt to external economic conditions 
and volatility of prices during multi-year contracts, has challenged the ability of industry 
to deliver on their contractual commitments, causing procurement delays. The impact of 
inflation  on  industry  capacity  to  respect  the  contracts  and  the  complexity  in  their 
implementation have been repeatedly raised by industry (e.g., Eurospace manifesto for an 
increased flexibility towards inflation58). Both the feedback in the Call for Evidence and 
from  the  meetings  with  industry  representatives  of  the  SDA  Expert  Group  identified 
specific constrains in the procurement process (detailed in Annex V), such as changes in 
requirements  during  the  execution  phase,  reliance  on  technologies  at  a  low  maturity 
level,  overspecification,  policy  measures  promoting  smaller  and  newer  companies  etc. 
The  Members  of  SDA  Expert  Group  would  also  welcome  the  establishing  of  a  system 
through which the Commission could report to the industry on the statistics related to its 
space procurement processes. 

58 Eurospace Position Paper, September 2022 

50 

 
 
 
4.1.2.  Efficiency and Cost Benefit Assessment 

The evaluation aims to assess if the costs incurred are justified and proportionate to the 
benefits  achieved,  answering  the  question  on  the  extent  to  which  the  intervention  has 
been  cost  effective.  The  evaluation  takes  into  consideration  both  the  investment  and 
spending into the deployment of the infrastructure and the provision of the services, and 
the wider socio-economic benefits resulting from their utilisation and exploitation.  

Since the EU space components’ development  has started before the current  MFF, it is 
not  possible to  perform an accurate  cost benefit assessment  only  for the  period 2021- 
2023.  This  is  because  the  benefits  stemming  from  the  exploitation  of  EU  space 
components are the consequence of long-lasting investment started before 2021. Putting 
in  balance  only  costs  of  the  years  2021-2023  with  all  the  Programme  benefits  would 
provide exceptionally high, i.e., unrealistic results. It is not possible, or not justified for 
the quality of the analysis, to extract a portion of the benefits limited to a few years.  

In addition, the SWD cannot show a single temporal scope limited from 2021 to 2023 for 
all  components  because  there  are  mature  services  offered  by  Galileo  and  Copernicus 
(which  are  also  characterised  by  high  cost  incurred  in  previous  MFFs)  and  no  services 
offered for others, e.g., NEO, GOVSATCOM (with minor or no cost in previous MFFs). 

In  addition,  it  should  be  highlighted  that  the  benefits  shown  have  not  been  measured 
directly  for  the  purpose  of  the  SWD,  but  they  are  macro-economic  estimations  derived 
from previous studies. Whereas that does not abide fully the evaluation methodology, no 
other approach appeared to yield better results as striving to provide estimates for a very 
delimited  period  for  a  programme  of  such  a  long  time  span  and  outreach,  would  not 
provide  a  meaningful  assessment  in  any  dimension  (either  costs  or  benefits).  Based  on 
the evolution of the KPIs, it is therefore assumed that the projected benefits materialise 
respectively. 

A.  Galileo Efficiency 

In  order  to  prove  efficiency,  it  is  first  necessary  to  identify  benefits.  There  are  several 
types of benefits:the benefits of activity in the upstream & downstream, or benefits from 
the exploitation of the services. This can be shown as below: 

51 

BENEFITSUPSTREAM & DOWNSTR. EFFECTSEXPLOITAT. EFFECTSUPSTREAMDOWNSTREAMMARKETUTILITYProfit, salaries, tax from the fulfilment of upstream contracts by industry, their suppliers and employeesR&D investment, such as Horizon, and supported economic activity.Profit, salaries, tax from enabled GNSS downstream marketSocietal benefits (time, productivity, environment, health and safety) 
 
It  is  not  possible  to  count  benefits  only  from  the  period  2021-2023  for  Galileo  and 
EGNOS.  They  have  started  to  provide  benefits  long  before  2021  and  at  the  same  time 
rely  on high  infrastructure investments  which started more than 10 years  ago. Between 
2021-2023 the infrastructure investments were minimal since constellations were mature 
and the ratios with benefits would give disproportionate results. Also, the benefits time-
frame does not  match with Copernicus since they rely  on different  satellites  or stations 
with completely different lifetimes and they have started at different times in the past. 

The  benefits  due  to  exploitation  of  EGNSS  have  been  estimated  to  be  EUR  352.402 
billion  (see  Annex  II.B.b  for  the  detailed  calculation),  while  the  cost  was  EUR  13.20 
billion.  Even  with  the  most  pessimistic  scenario  the  benefits  massively  outweigh  the 
costs. This is because of the extremely wide-reaching use cases of GNSS: Safety Critical 
and Liability Critical Transport, Terrestrial Vehicles monitoring & Automation, Drones, 
Critical Infrastructure, High Precision Professional Applications. 

B.  Copernicus Efficiency 

Copernicus  development  also  has  started  before  the  current  MFF.  For  its  benefits,  the 
period 2008-2027 has been considered, from the availability of the first services (derived 
from third-party satellite data) until the maturity of the component (first generation) with 
CO2 monitoring missions. 

The figure below presents the spending on Copernicus and the socio-economic benefits 
resulting from Copernicus. The benefits apply to the following sectors:  

•  Air quality and pollution monitoring and forecasting 
•  Border control 
•  Climate modelling 
•  Coastal area monitoring 
•  Control of IUU fishing activities 
•  Crops monitoring 
•  Fire detection and monitoring 
•  Floods monitoring and forecasting 
•  Forestry management and protection 
•  Ground elevation and ground motion monitoring 
• 
•  Law enforcement 
•  Marine resources management 
•  Maritime navigation 
•  Maritime safety - Search & rescue 
•  Oil and gas infrastructure management 
•  Offshore infrastructure management (wind-powered) 
•  Oil Pollution monitoring 
•  Solar energy monitoring and forecasting 

Ice monitoring to support navigation 

52 

 
•  Urban monitoring 
•  Water resources management 
•  Wetlands monitoring 

The models and calculations used are explained in Annex II.B.a. 

As  shown  in  the  table  below,  the  benefit  cost  ratio  (BCR)  over  the  period  2008-2027 
varies  between  the  three  different  scenarios  of  the  Copernicus  benefits  projection.  In  a 
neutral scenario the BCR of Copernicus is 3.7. This means that the downstream socio-
economic  benefits  experienced  by  the  Copernicus  end-users  and  beneficiaries  largely 
outweigh  the  costs  and  spending  that  went  into  Copernicus  over  the  same  period  by 
270%. In a  pessimistic scenario  the benefit cost  ratio  goes  to  2.5 and in an  optimistic 
scenario  it  goes  to  5.3  indicating  the  downstream  benefits  will  outweigh  the  costs  by 
150% to 430%. 

Table: Cost benefit ratio over the timeframe 2008 – 2027 

Costs 
EUR) 

(billion 

Benefits (billion EUR) 

Benefit cost ratio (billion EUR) 

Pessimistic  Neutral  Optimistic  Pessimistic  Neutral  Optimistic 

13.3  

32.6 

49.1 

71 

2.5 

3.7 

5.3 

C.  Space Situational Awareness Efficiency 

In the scope of this cost-benefit assessment, the cost considered are all the costs that have 
accumulated  from  the  beginning  of  the  component,  including  the  investments  made 
before the programme became operational, and planned until the end of this MFF.  

On the benefit side, the analysis also accounts for all the benefits accumulated since the 
beginning  of  the  Programme  in  2014,  and  2027  (when  all  its  services  will  be 
operational), for the purpose of keeping the consistency with the cost’s timeframe. While 
the  benefits  for  SST  subcomponent  were  assessed  up  to  2035  with  the  assumption  that 
they  be  enabled  thanks  to  the  current  Programme.  This  assessment  is  therefore  very 
conservative  and  shows  that  the  actual  benefits  can  be  more  important.  The  benefits 
provided by the SSA apply to the following sectors/activities: 

•  Delays in launch 
•  Disruption of power grid networks leading to short power loss or longer blackout 
•  Disruption to communication  
•  Disruption to GNSS signals 
•  Failures of equipment 
•  Human health risks 
• 
• 

Impact on the potential emergence of a commercial market for SST services 
Impact on the risk of losing all the space assets (Kessler effect) 

53 

 
 
Increased economic return of the EU NEO service value chain 

• 
•  Malfunction in avionics 
•  Orbit Injection Anomalies 
•  Preventing infrastructure damages 
•  Preventing injuries 
•  Preventing Land damage 
•  Reduced lifespan of specific services/satellites  
•  Reduced loss of revenues for spacecraft owners and operators  
•  Reduction of fragmentation 
•  Risk of complete loss/lack of functioning of satellite 
•  Safety of people 
•  Saving lives 
•  Temporary disruption/loss of service 
•  Waste of propellant due to defueling 

An estimation per sector/activity in euros is provided in more detail per sector in Annex 
II.B.b. 

The BCR of SSA for the period of 2014 – 2027 is 5.92: 

Costs 
EUR 260.5 million 

Benefits 
EUR 1.5 billion 

Benefits cost ratio  
5.92 

This  means  that the downstream  socio-economic  benefits  experienced by the SSA end-
users  and  beneficiaries  over  the  timeframe  2014-2020  largely  outweigh  the  costs  and 
spending that went into SSA over the same period nearly six times. 

Furthermore,  the  investments  in  the  SSA  component  also  generate  many  benefits  that 
were only assessed qualitatively and could not be included in the cost-benefit assessment. 
These benefits correspond to thousands of lives saved; to a better positioning of the EU 
in  the  international  stage;  to  reducing  EU  dependence  on  other  countries;  to  important 
knowledge creation, etc. All these benefits increase the usefulness of the SSA component 
and show that the investments in this component are justified. 

D.  GOVSATCOM Efficiency 

The  GOVSATCOM  Impact  Assessment  recognised  that  during  the  first  ten  years  of 
operations, the cost for the infrastructure would be significant, whereas the benefits will 
only  occur  at  the  later  stage  (ca.  15  years  after  the  investments  are  made).  The  same 
assessment  showed  the  correlation  between  the  EU  investment  in  GOVSATCOM  and 
growth (Gross Value Added (GVA). GVA was estimated to increase between  EUR 2.7 
billion  and  EUR  5  billion  (compared  to  the  total  EU  economy  of  about  EUR  14.6 
billion), and to generate up to 8 000 jobs. 

54 

 
The  expected  benefits  of  GOVSATCOM  services  utilisation  could  not  be  quantified  at 
this point because the infrastructure has not yet been deployed and declared operational. 
However,  the  evaluation  estimates  that  over  the  period  2025  -  2027,  the  potential 
economic losses due to cyber-attacks only on transportation sector is EUR 554.3 million. 
The budget allocated to (=total cost of) GOVSATCOM is EUR 180 million. This means 
that if GOVSTACOM contributed to reducing 32 % of the economic losses from this one 
single use case, then the cost would be equivalent to the benefits for end users. 

Beside  the  forecast  of  the  quantitative  benefit,  the  IA  identifies  various  qualitative 
benefits such as enhanced security thanks to the access and information assurance for all 
users,  in  particular  for  Member  States  without  national  assets;  defragmentation  of 
benefits for users; more predictable and stable EU markets for industry. 

E.  General remarks on Efficiency  

Despite a challenging environment and the complexity in the quantification of benefits, 
due  also  to  the  fact  that  each  component  has  different  timeframe,  maturity,  users  and 
output,  it  can  be  concluded  the  Programme  is  efficiently  carried  out  and  provides 
significant  value  for  money.  The  benefits  brought  at  European  and  global  level  by  the 
Programme’s  long-standing  components  outweigh  the  costs  that  were  directly  and 
indirectly  sustained  for  their  development.  For  the  more  recent  components,  a 
quantitative assessment was not  yet  possible  but using proxy data (e.g., cyberattacks in 
the  transport  sector)  indicates  the  enormous  potential  once  the  components  are  fully 
operational.  

4.1.3.  Coherence 

Coherence assessment was done taking into consideration: 

•  The synergies among the services provided by Copernicus, Galileo, EGNOS and 

GOVSATCOM.  

•  Their coherence and enabling role to other EU policies and actions.  
•  Their coherence with international policies.  
•  The synergies with other EU funding programmes (Horizon Europe, Invest EU). 

Copernicus,  Galileo,  EGNOS  and  GOVSATCOM  provide  different  data  and  services, 
that can be used simultaneously to offer information and applications to draft, implement 
and  monitor  EU  policies  and  activities  (e.g.,  precision  agriculture  or  enabling 
applications for energy sector and raw materials policies), as well as to support the green 
and digital transition or the robustness of EU resilience. Overlaps are not possible, since 
each  component  provides  a  specific  service  (navigation  and  positioning,  Earth 
Observation, satellite communication), as described in Section 2, while the benefit can be 
maximised combined them, when possible.  

55 

 
 
This  section  presents  several,  non-exhaustive  examples  of  how  EU  space  data  and 
services are referenced in numerous EU legislations, used for their implementation, and 
linked to international policy. 

In  addition,  it  provides  a  few  examples  of  blending  operations  with  other  EU  funding 
programmes  (e.g.,  Cassini  and  IOD/IOV).    While  research  and  innovation  activities 
financed by Horizon Europe are not covered in this evaluation, the document include an 
example of Horizon Europe’s support for the research and innovation needs of the Space 
Programme. 

This  chapter  also  outlines  how  the  Programme  contributes  to  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs). 

A.  Coherence of Galileo and EGNOS 

By  providing  improved  positioning  and  timing  information,  Galileo  and  EGNOS  are 
instrumental  in  supporting  various  EU  policies.  It  aligns  with  the  EU  Single 
European  Sky  initiative,  particularly  through  its  support  for  Performance-Based 
Navigation  and  EGNOS,  enhancing  the  efficiency  and  unity  of  European  airspace 
management. For maritime safety, Galileo's OSNMA supports the Integrated Maritime 
Policy  and  EU  Maritime  Safety  Strategy,  promoting  safer  waters.  Galileo  also 
contributed  to  advancing  the  EU  Green  Deal  Initiative  for  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility,  particularly  in  the  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System.  Within  the 
"Europe on the Move" package, Galileo's OSNMA and HAS ensure GNSS authenticity 
verification and decimetre accuracy, along with the future Galileo Emergency Warning, 
thus playing key roles in enhancing road segment safety and regulations.  

Furthermore, Galileo contributes to the objectives of EU Common Agricultural Policy 
increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  farming  sector  and  supporting  the  functioning  of  the 
Integrated  Administration  and  Control  System.  Satellite  navigation  can  enhance  the 
environmental and climate performance of agriculture by enabling precise dosing tailored 
to  crop  needs,  resulting  in  decreased  consumption  of  both  fuels  and  agricultural  inputs 
like mineral fertilisers and pesticides.  

For the energy sector, Galileo and EGNOS are instrumental by providing precise timing 
and synchronisation for Phasor Measurement Units that play a critical role in enhancing 
the  reliability  of  power  systems  by  measuring  voltage  and  timestamping  these 
measurements. This contribution of Galileo and EGNOS addresses challenges in energy 
security,  particularly  related  to  the  energy  market  disruption  caused  by  Russia's  brutal 
invasion of Ukraine, and supports the REPowerEU plan, leading to the transformation of 
Europe's energy system and reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels.  

Together  with  Copernicus,  Galileo  plays  an  increasingly  important  role  in  the  raw 
materials  sector  and  contributes  to  the  broader  objectives  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  for 
Critical Raw Materials, particularly in applications like mining machinery control and 
mining vehicle tracking and asset management.  

56 

 
Galileo  also  demonstrates  synergies  with  other  space  components  across  multiple 
fields. In terms of disaster management Galileo, Copernicus and GOVSATCOM can be 
used to in synergies. For example, in case of an earthquake, Copernicus can monitor the 
consequences  on  earth  providing  information  on  damage  assessment,  Galileo  and 
EGNOS  will  be  able  to  broadcast  emergency  messages  to  personal  receivers,  while 
GOVSATCOM  will  ensure  secure  communication  for  governmental  users  (e.g.,  civil 
protection).  

B.  Coherence of Copernicus 

In  terms  of  coherence,  the  six  Copernicus  services59  can  be  utilized  by  authorities, 
companies, citizens including policy makers, as well as the global scientific community. 
They support a variety of applications in many non-space domains, potentially impacting 
businesses and organisations in their day-to-day activities and operations.  

At  the  same  time  coherence  between  different  Copernicus  services  is  ensured  by 
supporting various segments and applications with data and products. Four Copernicus 
Thematic  Hubs  (Coastal,  Health,  Energy  and  Arctic)  have  been  launched  to  combine 
information and products for specific thematic areas, aiming to facilitate access, improve 
coordination, and promote collaboration. 

All Copernicus services provide key information on our path to  climate neutrality and 
resilience. The Copernicus Climate Change Service provides unique climate information 
about  the  past,  present,  and  future  to  support  adaptation  and  mitigation  strategies.  It 
provides interactive access to many climate indices from the service in support of climate 
change  adaptation  and  forecasting.  The  annually  published  “European  State  of  the 
Climate”  provides  updates  on  key  climate  indicators  for  policy  makers  and  businesses 
for a more resilient society.  

The Copernicus services play a crucial role in monitoring and preserving terrestrial and 
marine ecosystems and biodiversity at both global and European scales. These services 
support  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  upcoming  Nature  Restoration  Law  by 
systematically monitoring biophysical parameters and identifying threats to biodiversity. 
Copernicus  data  is  essential  for  the  implementation  of  various  EU  directives,  such  as 
Natura 2000, the Birds and Habitats directives, the Water Framework Directive, and the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, among others.  

Copernicus  helps  supplying  clean,  affordable,  and  secure  energy  by  offering  valuable 
data  on  renewable  energy  sources,  enabling  effective  management  of  solar,  wind,  and 
wave  energy  locations,  and  directly  supporting  the  REPowerEU  Plan  in  response  to 
global energy market  disruptions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Multispectral 

59 Copernicus Services 

57 

 
 
and  future  hyperspectral  analysis  from  Copernicus  Sentinels  can  in  the  future  help 
identify and locate raw materials on Earth's surface. 

Copernicus  also  plays  an  important  role  in  promoting  sustainable  and  smart  mobility 
when its services provide essential data for improving maritime transportation, air travel 
efficiency,  railway  track  management,  and  road  transport  energy  savings.  Additionally, 
these  services  assist  in  monitoring  air  pollutant  emissions  and  support  new  emission 
regulations for aviation. 

As  of  2023,  with  the  introduction  of  the  Area  Monitoring  System  in  the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  the  use  of  Copernicus  products  in  Member  States  for 
monitoring  purposes  has  been  continuous  and  fundamental.  The  mandatory  Area 
Monitoring System provides farmers with timely alerts and supports national authorities 
in  decision-making  for  Common  Agricultural  Policy  aid  eligibility.  Moreover, 
Copernicus Land Monitoring Service indicators benefit agriculture by providing valuable 
input  for  crop  monitoring  and  yield  forecasts.  Copernicus  data  also  supports  "smart 
farming" applications and precision agriculture and assist in fisheries control activities. 

The  Copernicus  services  significantly  contribute  to  various  global  initiatives:  its  Land 
Service  provides  support  to  international  initiatives  such  as  the  United  Nations 
Environment  Programme,  Food and Agriculture  Organization, World Bank,  UN-REDD 
and United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Copernicus Atmosphere 
and  Climate  Service  supports  international  coordination  frameworks  such  as  the 
Integrated  Global  Greenhouse  Gas  Information  System  and  the  Committee  on  Earth 
Observation  Satellites.  It  also  aids  in  national  inventory  reporting  under  the  United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Kyoto Protocol, and 
United  Nations  Paris  Agreement,  and  produces  essential  climate  variables  for  the 
International Global Climate Observing System program.  

C.  Coherence of SSA 

The  SST  sub-component  plays  a  crucial  role  in  preventing  damages  to  EU  Space 
infrastructure, which is  vital  for the continuity of services provided by all components. 
Additionally,  the  Space  Weather  sub-component  aligns  well  with  other  satellite-based 
activities,  as  some  navigation  and  Earth  observation  satellites  currently  host  Space 
Weather  instruments  to  measure  radiation  around  the  satellites.  This  is  essential  for 
managing  potential  interference  with  satellite  electronics,  electrostatic  charging,  and 
damage to onboard materials or space ground infrastructure. This is the case in particular 
for  satellite  navigation  constellations  including  Galileo  that  is  positioned  at  relatively 
high altitude and is less protected by the geomagnetic field than other orbit regimes, like 
low orbit.  

At  the  same  time,  SST  services  are  also  complementary  to  wider  European  initiatives 
such as research activities related to the protection of space-based infrastructure carried 
out under EU framework programmes for research and innovation, a Digital Agenda for 

58 

 
Europe  initiative  as  well  as  security-related  initiatives  such  as  EU  Space  Strategy  for 
Security and Defence. 

On the more global scale, The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 
Space  endorsed  recommendations  for  creating  an  international  response  to  the  Near-
Earth  Objects  threat.  These  recommendations  focus  on  sharing  information,  raising 
awareness,  and  establishing  emergency  response  protocols  to  mitigate  the  risks 
associated  with  Near-Earth  Objects.  Two  objectives  of  the  NEO  subcomponent  align 
with these recommendations: building a European Catalogue of Near-Earth Objects and 
developing  a  rapid  expert  response  service  for  new  Near-Earth  Objects,  including 
potential ground impactors and fast-response space missions. 

D.  Coherence of GOVSATCOM 

The GOVSTACOM component is coherent with EU policies and priorities, it aligns with 
the EU Digital Europe Programme). In fact, the GOVSATCOM component supports the 
further  development  of  EuroQCI 
initiative  (a  secure  quantum  communication 
infrastructure for the EU), addressing emerging challenges in computing capabilities and 
security threats to communication networks.  

The  GOVSATCOM  services  are  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  several  EU  policy 
priorities,  including  the  EU  maritime  security  strategy,  telecommunications  policies, 
humanitarian aid, border management etc. whose efficacity is expected to be boosted by 
the component.  

GOVSATCOM  is  also  complementary  to,  and  well  aligned  with  the  objectives  of  the 
new Union Secure Connectivity Programme IRIS², which emphasizes the importance of 
satellite communication as a strategic asset for governments and civil society alike.  

E.  Coherence and synergies with other EU funding programmes (Horizon Europe, 

Invest EU) 

a)  Research  and  development  activities  in  support  of  the  EU  Space 

programme 

technology, 

(mission  evolution, 

Research and development activities  are an essential component for the development of 
the  Programme.  Upstream 
infrastructure)  and 
downstream segments (applications, user technology) are addressed in a complementary 
way both under the Programme and under Horizon Europe that is instrumental to finance 
the future generations of EU Space infrastructure and ensure the uptake of the services 
provided.  For  example,  EUSPA  has  continued  implementing  the  downstream  research 
and  development  (R&D)  actions  funded  through  Horizon  Europe,  as  well  as  the 
Fundamental  Elements  envelope  under  the  EU  Space  programme  dedicated  to  chipset 
and receivers. 

59 

 
b)  Horizontal Actions to support the EU  space ecosystem: the example of 

IOD/IOV and the Cassini initiative 

The  In  Orbit  Demonstration/In  Orbit  Validation  (IOD/IOV)  initiative  and  the  Cassini 
Space  Entrepreneurship  initiative  (Cassini)  are  horizontal  actions  to  support  an 
innovative  and  competitive  EU  space  ecosystem,  promote  the  growing  of  SMEs  and 
start-ups, and encourage the uptake of space-based services and applications.  They are 
implemented  by  different  actors,  and  financed  by  different  EU  funding  programmes, 
ensuring effectiveness, coherence and the EU added value.  

60 

 
 
 
 
In Orbit Demonstration/In Orbit Validation (IOD/IOV)  

IOD/IOV allows academia, research organisations, start-ups, SMEs, and larger industrial 
companies to effectively test new technologies in space, reducing the time to market. At 
the  same  time,  the  initiative  stimulates  new  European  launchers  systems  and  solutions 
through open competition for the procurement of launch services. IOD/IOV is funded by 
Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, but it has been included in this evaluation to show its 
effectiveness, EU added value and to prove the coherence of the Space Programme with 
Research and Innovation activities.  

The actions are partially entrusted to ESA, in particular to prepare the calls for expression 
of  interest,  the  implementation  of  IOD/IOV  projects  and  the  procurement  of  launch 
services and management of the related procurements and interfaces with industry. 

The IOD/IOV initiative kicked off in 2018 under Horizon 2020, when the Commission 
published the first call for expression of interest  for experiments. It attracted more than 
50  proposals  from  various  European  entities,  from  SMEs  to  large  companies, 
universities,  and  research  organisations.  Retained  applications  offered  a  range  of 
innovations in the field of Earth observation, positioning navigation and timing, satellite 
communication  and  space  science.  In  September  2020,  the  first  selected  IOD/IOV 
experiment,  was  successfully  launched.  The  three  new  missions  launched  in  October 
202360  are  part  of  this  selection.  In  the  years  2021-  2023,  two  calls  were  launched  for 
IOD/ IOV that received a total of 62 applications, the majority of which (41 applications) 
coming from SMEs, and the rest from  Midcaps, LSIs (Less-significant institutions) and 
Universities.  31  of  these  applications  (50%)  were  retained  for  pre-selection.  Currently, 
two  parallel  calls  for  expression  of  interest  are  open  until  March  202661  to  gather 
experiments that could be considered for IOD/IOV actions that cover aggregation launch 
services and operations.  

IOD/IOV  targets  (KPIs)  have  been  reached  with  the  exceptions  of  the  ones  related  to 
launch  services.  Some  delay  in  developing  new  contracts  for  launch  services  is  not 
impacting the implementation of the IOD/IOV missions so far because the new batch of 
experiments  is  not  completely  ready  for  launch.  In  addition,  in  comparison  with  its 
previous  edition,  IOD/IOV  under  the  current  MFF  already  succeeded  in  reaching  more 
SMEs and from a larger number of Member States.  

Cassini Space Entrepreneurs initiative (Cassini) 

Cassini  is  the  Commission's  initiative  to  support  entrepreneurs,  start-ups  and  SMEs  in 
the  space  industry  in  the  EU,  via  different  types  of  actions.  Cassini  is  a  horizontal 
initiative,  including  activities  included  in  the  Programme  and  exploiting  synergies  and 

60 Press Release: EU Launches Three New Missions 

61 Ibid.  

61 

 
 
coherence among the EU programmes, getting funding from multiple sources – the EU 
Space Programme  (blending for equity investments under InvestEU and matchmaking), 
Horizon Europe (for business development, competitions, inducement prizes and In-Orbit 
Demonstration  &  Validation)  and  a  matching  contribution  from  InvestEU  for  blending 
operation. The Programme is contributing to following initiatives under CASSINI: 

•  CASSINI  Challenges  (MyEUSpace  Competition)  is  aiming  at  supporting 
startups  in  the  development  of  their  ideas  and  concepts  into  final  products.  The 
budget for MyEUSpace competition is in total EUR 1 million per year of which 
EUR 750 000 is from GALILEO and EUR 250 000 is from Copernicus. 

•  CASSINI  Space  Academy  provides  online  training  for  start-ups  (budget  of 

around EUR 300 000 – EUR 400 000 per year). 

•  CASSINI  Business  Accelerator  was  set  up  in  2023  to  provide  business 
development  advice  and  growth  acceleration  to  Europe-based  start-up  space-
based companies that achieve high revenue growth and attract significant external 
investments.  This  initiative  aligns  with  the  commercialization  goals  of  the 
Programme  and  Horizon  Europe,  while  also  leveraging  synergies  with  the 
InvestEU program and ensuring complementarity with other business incubation 
programs  such  as  ESA-BIC.  CASSINI  Business  Accelerator  is  run  in  direct 
management  by  the  European  Commission  and will  have  a  mid-term  review  by 
the end of 2024.  

•  CASSINI  Matchmaking:  The  action  consists  of  the  organisation  of  a  series  of 
matchmaking  events  for  start-ups  and  SMEs  to  create  broader  professional 
networks.  The  events  include  investor  matchmaking  to  prepare  companies  for 
investment  and  connect  them  with  potential  investors,  as  well  as  industrial 
partnering  to  facilitate  connections  with  large  companies  for  product  testbeds, 
customers,  and  partnerships.  In  2021,  the  Commission  directly  managed  the 
Matchmaking action, but management will be delegated to EUSPA in 2024, with 
collaboration between EUSPA and the Commission in 2022-2023. 

•  The  Programme  is  also  contributing  funds  to  the  CASSINI  Seed  and  Growth 
Funding Facility through the InvestEU blending operation. The facility aims to 
establish funds and support existing ones that seek to invest in the space sector, 
with  the  primary  goal  of  preventing  European  space  companies  from  seeking 
foreign investment and relocating abroad.  

The impact can be summarised as per the table below: 

62 

 
 
 
# 

Impacts 

KPIs 

1  Outreach and 
Increase 
awareness of 
space 
programmes 
and attracting 
companies to 
develop 
space-based 
solutions  

2  Supporting 

and enabling 
the European 
industry (at 
all the stages 
of 
development 
and maturity) 
to build 
solutions 
utilizing EU 
SP 

1.1 Increase in 
the number of 
applicants 
1.1.1 
Applicants for 
ideas 
1.1.2 
Applicants for 
prototypes 
1.1.3 
Applicants for 
products  
1.2 
Diversification 
and 
maximization 
of (EU) 
Countries 
represented  
2.1 Number of 
teams 
receiving 
support and 
size of 
financial 
support given 
2.1.1 Awarded 
ideas 

2.1.2 Awarded 
prototypes 

2.1.3 Awarded 
products 

Comments and 
outcome 

Positive trend in 
attracting more 
actors and focusing 
more on higher 
maturity solutions 

Value for 
2022 
233 
applicants 

Value for 
2023 
245 
applicants 

146 

92 

87 

95  

NA  

58  

24 EU 
countries + 
Norway + 
Switzerland  

25 EU MS + 
Norway + 
Switzerland 
+ Iceland 

43 teams 
(EUR 1 m) 

30 teams 
(EUR 1 m) 

23 (EUR 10 
000 each + 
additional 
EUR 25 000 
to one final 
winner)  
20 (EUR 15 
000 each + 
additional 
EUR 50 000 
to one final 
winner)  
NA (0)  

15 (EUR 10 
000 each) 

10 (EUR 30 
000 each) 

5 (EUR 100 
000 each) 

Total funding level 
to industry 
sustained, more 
financial support is 
given per company 
(except for ideas) 
which enables more 
progress and results 
per company. This 
observed trend also 
meets EUSPA’s 
objective of 
increasing focus on 
higher maturity 
products and near-
market products. 

63 

 
 
  
  
All companies from 
2022 awards have 
survived and are 
being tracked. 
However, for 2023 
it is not possible to 
make these 
assumptions yet 
since they have just 
been awarded.  
Positive engagement 
of stakeholders in 
feedback activity 
and active 
implementation of 
EUSPA to these 
activities  

In general around 20 
requests per month 
are supported 
however it is done 
via the EUSPA core 
team, not utilizing 
this initiative budget 
More advancements 
were achieved in 
2023 in turning 
prototypes to final 
products, and final 
products to viable 
business 
opportunities.  
This also 
materialized because 
the 2023 edition 
focused on more 
mature concepts and 
provided more 
funding to the users, 
therefore better 
results were 

A survey was conducted 
post award with lots of 
useful qualitative 
appreciation and 
suggestions for 
improvements. Suggestions 
for example related to the 
application process were 
implemented in the 
following edition. 
All the 
participants 

All of the 
participants 

20 
Prototypes 
supported 
into viable 
business 
opportunities 
5 

28 
Prototypes 
supported 
into viable 
business 
opportunities  
15 

2.2 User 
satisfaction  

2.3 Number of 
trainings and 
attendees on 
how to use and 
access 
Copernicus 
data  
3.1 Number of 
Prototypes 
supported into 
viable business 
opportunities  

3.2 Number of 
final products 
and viable 
business 
propositions 
supported 

64 

3  Enable the 

development 
of European 
based 
products and 
services that 
utilize data 
from the EU 
Space 
Programmes 

 
achieved even 
though, in absolute 
number, less awards 
were given.  
NA – it is too early 
to assess today this 
KPI, but it will be 
done in later years 

NA 

NA 

3.3 Number of 
products or 
companies that 
was supported 
in scale – up  

The evaluation shows the increase of participation to Cassini activities with a high grade 
of  satisfaction  of  the  participants.  It  demonstrates  that  Cassini  has  successfully  and 
increasingly brought  together the space companies’ ecosystem  with  the VC and private 
financing ecosystem and enabled space start-ups and SMEs to network and promote their 
business  ideas.  In  conclusion,  Cassini  has  effectively  supported  the  development  of  a 
Venture Capital community in the EU that would invest in space companies, supported 
SMEs and Start-ups to adopt Copernicus and Galileo/EGNOS data and services in their 
solutions  and  businesses  and  helped  them  build  their  prototypes  and  advance  their 
product maturity.  

F.  Contribution  of  the  Programme  to  United  Nations  Sustainable  Development 

Goals 

The  Programme  had  a  very  significant  contribution  to  the  United  Nations  Sustainable 
Development Goals (UN SDGs) as acknowledged in two studies by the United Nations 
Office for Outer Space Affairs62. The contribution can be summarised as follows: 

62 UNOOSA: Eu Space Supporting A World Of 8 Billion People, UNOOSA: European Global Navigation 

Satellite System and Copernicus  

65 

 
 
The  Copernicus  component  provides  essential  tools  to  report  on  SDG  indicators  and 
supports  effective  monitoring  of  progress  and  compliance  with  the  international 
agreements.  This  includes  assisting  in  strategies  related  to  conventions  such  as  the 
Ramsar  Convention  on  Wetlands  and  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on 
Climate  Change.  Furthermore,  the  Program's  EO  data,  particularly  from  Copernicus 
CLMS, aids in monitoring crop conditions and providing early warnings on failing crops, 
benefiting  organizations  like  'Action  Against  Hunger'  and  the  'Centre  de  Suivi 
Ecologique de Dakar'.  

Galileo  and  EGNOS  contribute  to  several  SDGs  by  providing  precise  positioning, 
tracking, and geolocation services including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by enabling precision 
agriculture,  which  can  lead  to  reduced  resource  consumption  and  increased  food 
production. Additionally, Galileo and EGNOS play a crucial role in disaster response and 
management,  supporting  SDG  11  (Sustainable  Cities  and  Communities)  and  SDG  13 
(Climate Action) by enhancing emergency response, infrastructure resilience, and climate 
monitoring.  

66 

 
 
 
The  exhibition  “Space  for  our  Planet  -  People  and  Space  Solutions:  Together  for 
Change”63  is based on a digital platform highlighting how the Programme can provide 
innovative solutions to achieve the 17 SDGs. It shows real life testimonies from scientists 
and  users  across  the  world.  The  exhibition  in  physical  format  has  been  travelling  for 
about  3  years  around  the  world.  A  more  detailed  description  of  the  Programme’s 
achievements towards SDGs goals is available in Annex VII.  

G.  General remarks on coherence 

Copernicus  is  strongly  coherent  with  Galileo  across  several  market  segments,  on  the 
downstream applications side. Sectors such as agriculture and urban planning are two of 
the key segments where  combined applications are being  developed, however there are 
several  other  segments  that  benefit  from  these  synergies  (more  examples  are  given  in 
Annex  VI).    SSA  and  GOVSATCOM  are  coherent  with  the  overall  Copernicus 
component  with  SST  ensuring  prevention  of  damages  to  the  space  infrastructure, 
including 
the  one  of  Copernicus  and  GOVSATCOM  supporting  with  secure 
communication  capabilities.  This  aligns  seamlessly  with  the  Copernicus  CEMS,  as 
GOVSATCOM  can  augment  the  existing  service  by  delivering  secure  communication 
solutions  during  disaster  management  activities.    Finally,  IOD/IOV  and  Cassini 
initiatives shows the coherence with other funding programmes, boosting synergies and 
enhancing EU growth and innovations.  

4.2.  How did the Space Programme make a difference and to whom? (EU  Added 

Value) 

The purpose of this chapter is to assess the additional benefits realised by the Programme 
and its components when compared to what Member States could achieve individually or 
what  could  be  achieved  at  international  level.  It  offers  a  qualitative  assessment, 
considering  the  perspectives  of  users,  Member  States,  and  the  overall  international 
perception. 

As mentioned before, EU space initiatives and programmes started in the nineties of the 
past  century.  In  the  meantime,  several  studies,  impact  assessment,  regulations  and 
evaluations and has been conducted to prove the EU added value. A public consultation 
was launched in the beginning of January 2018 within the framework of the preparation 
for the next MFF and the main findings are the following: 

1.  A single country cannot achieve significant results alone or afford a large space 
programme.  The  Galileo/EGNOS  and  Copernicus  programmes  have  created 
world-class strategic infrastructures that no Member State would have been able 
to create on their own. Space matters are requiring a high level of investment to 
achieve results and bring the necessary independence of Europe. 

63 Space Solutions for a Sustainable World 

67 

 
 
2.  Ensuring  space  capacity  for  Europe  means  fostering  collaboration  between 
Member  States  in  the  industrial  sector.  Bringing  together  several  nations, 
competences,  skills  add  value  to  any  of  these  endeavours  for  the  benefit  of 
European society. Transboundary infrastructures clearly provide EU value added. 
3.  The EU has a key role to play in supporting the sector and allows it to continue to 
the 

innovate  and  develop  new  services 
competitiveness of the space industry at large including satellite operators. 

for  citizens,  also  supporting 

4.  Downstream, the data, signals and services create far more valuable information 

and knowledge. 

5.  The  Galileo/EGNOS  and  Copernicus  programmes  allow  Member  States  to 

specialise in specific upstream technology. 

6.  Infrastructures are of strategic importance, require multiannual financial security 

(because of the high investment and maintenance cost) and continuity. 

7.  Pooling  and  sharing  of  national  space  capabilities  would  also  allow  Member 
States  without  own  capabilities  to  develop  their  services  based  on  satellite 
systems  at  a  national  level,  with  a  positive industrial  fallout  that  otherwise  they 
would  not  have.  Moreover,  the  development  and  use  of  common  and  shared 
spatial  systems  favours  the  achievement  of  other  EU  objectives,  common  to  all 
Member  States;  a  significant  example  could  be  border  control  and  maritime 
surveillance  with  satellite  systems,  or  the  development  of  trans-European 
transport networks. 

When asked to  qualify the extent to  which the current  Galileo/EGNOS and Copernicus 
programmes  provide  EU  added  value,  more  than  two  thirds  of  respondents  considered 
this to be the case, while about a minority of one quarter of the respondents considered 
this to be the case to some extent only: 

A.  EU Added Value of Galileo and EGNOS 

Galileo  and  EGNOS  have  been  operational  already  long  before  the  current  MFF.  Its 
value  added  has  been  already  detailed  in  the  IA  of  the  Regulation  (page  16  and 
following). 

68 

 
 
The  EU  added  value  of  the  Galileo  and  EGNOS  was  assessed  as  high.  According  to 
stakeholders,  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  existing  EU  intervention  would  have  such 
severe  consequences  for  Galileo  and  EGNOS  that  the  entire  programme  would  be 
jeopardised. Ending EU intervention would entail a considerable waste of public funding 
and would impact the outcome of efforts supported by private investments. Stopping or 
withdrawing  EU  intervention  would  severely  damage  the  image  of  the  EU,  as  such  a 
decision  would  reflect  badly  on  the  Union’s  reputation  for  leading  programmes  as 
complex and challenging as Galileo and EGNOS. 

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

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

As  demonstrated  earlier  in  the  text  Galileo  provides  state  of  the  art  services  that  allow 
Europe to be independent, if necessary, on positioning, navigation, and timing services. 
Unlike GPS, Galileo is  a civil  service, under civilian control with  dual  applications for 
civil and security sensitive operations, that reduces the risk of disruption due to conflict. 
Moreover,  Galileo's  independence  extends  to  the  network  layer,  since  even  with  a 
disruption of the terrestrial network, Galileo would be still available.  

It is unlikely that a single Member State could independently gather the budget required 
for Galileo/EGNOS and manage such a complex system. The shared effort and resources 
of  the  EU  enable  Galileo/EGNOS  to  operate  smoothly  and  efficiently.  Additionally, 
pooling  expertise  from  the  broad  EU's  industrial  base  more  than  relying  on  national 
expertise, allows for faster and better service provision. Furthermore, EUSPA is a single-
entry  point  to  collect  user  needs  and  offering  funding  schemes  to  support  the 
development  of  new  ideas,  technologies,  and  solutions,  avoiding  overlaps  and 
fragmentations, enabling economy of scale, and enhancing synergies. 

Galileo/EGNOS  provides  high  precision  and  interoperability  with  the  US  GPS  and 
WAAS and offer significant technological value to the EU. Strategically, it grants the EU 
independence,  ensuring  network  continuity,  and  delivering  global  coverage. 
Additionally, a national-level initiative would be costly and challenging to manage, while 
the  EU's  shared  resources,  expertise,  and  funding  mechanisms  foster  efficiency  and 
innovation. 

69 

 
B.  EU Added Value of Copernicus 

Copernicus  has  been  operational  since  the  previous  MFF.  Its  value  added  has  been 
already  detailed  in  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  Regulation  (page  15).  “EU  action  is 
providing considerable added value above what could be achieved at national level.” 

Copernicus  has  significantly  enhanced  the  EU's  visibility  and  leadership  in  providing 
high-quality, free and open Earth Observation data at a global level in key areas such as 
climate change and disaster management. It offers a one-stop shop portal for a wide array 
of data, products, and services of consistent high quality.  

Moreover,  by  providing  strategic  insights,  it  serves  international  objectives  at  a  global 
scale,  for  example  the  Paris  Agreement  objective  and  the  United  Nations  Sustainable 
Development Goals, Copernicus enables in many cases the EU and its Member States to 
remain  non-dependent  on  third  countries.  By  supporting  several  third  countries  with 
remote  sensing  information,  Copernicus  not  only  strengthens  the  EU’s  international 
relations  but  also  opens  up  diplomatic  routes  and  gives  the  EU  strategic  and  political 
relevance  at  global  stage.  and  .  This  aligns  with  the  Global  Gateway  strategy,  through 
which  EU  builds  solid  international  partnerships  in  support  of  green  and  digital 
transition, bringing reciprocal benefits and reinforcing Europe’s role as a global actor. 

Developing and managing a programme of this scale would be extremely challenging at a 
national level, both in terms of financial resources and operational capacity. Additionally, 
given the various needs across the EU that demand a collective response, it is essential to 
pool  resources  and  collaborate  to  address  these  shared  challenges.  An  important 
advantage  of  Copernicus  is  its  ability  to  support  national  and  EU  decision  makers, 
providing high quality an independent data and information, as well as for the monitoring 
of the implementation of EU and national policies.  

C.  EU Added Value of Space Situational Awareness  

The SSA component brings significant  value to  the EU, since is providing services for 
the  security  and  safety  of  the  EU  and  its  Member  States,  pooling  resources  and 
capabilities  from  different  Member  States.  SST  presents  capabilities  that  is  beyond  the 
capabilities of most Member States due to high costs. In fact, some Member States do not 
have a proper SST mechanism in place, or it they have limited capabilities. Similarly, for 
NEO and SWE, a variety of instruments and substantial resources are necessary, making 
it  unfeasible  for  individual  Member  States  to  tackle.  Implementing  an  initiative  at  EU 
level  also  enhances  its  efficiency  by  preventing  duplication  of  assets  across  Member 
States. Moreover, operating at the Union level allows for a strong international presence, 
where the EU can stand alongside major players such as the United States. 

70 

 
D.  EU Added Value of GOVSATCOM 

GOVSATCOM strengthens the EU’s resilience and  ensures all security stakeholders an 
access to satellite communication that meets EU-standardized minimum-security levels, 
leading  to  enhanced  security  and  operational  efficiency,  reduced  administrative 
complexities,  and  notable  economic  advantages.  This  approach  particularly  benefits 
Member States  without nationally owned satcom infrastructures, allowing them to  pool 
and share resources  during crisis  or emergency situations. Additionally, Member States 
with national satcom capacities benefit from expanded coverage in terms of geography, 
capacity, and services, creating EU added value. 

One of the main  reasons for  action at  EU level  is  the cost  effectiveness,  as well  as  the 
possibility  to  offer  an  additional  level  of  security  for  satcom  services  thanks  the 
GOVSATCOM  Hub  infrastructure  that  will  be  put  in  place  by  pooling  and  sharing 
services by governmental providers. 

Moreover,  an  initiative  at  EU  level  permits  to  aggregate  the  demand  and  to  negotiate 
favourable  financial  conditions  for  users.  This  system  is  expected  to  benefit  operators 
because the aggregation of demand will result in large volumes and long-term contracts 
which  ultimately  will  also  be  reducing  the  administrative  burden  associated  with 
managing multiple short-term ad-hoc contracts with numerous clients. 

E.  General remarks on EU Added Value 

Galileo  and  EGNOS  enables  EU  independence  from  dual-use  systems  such  as  GPS, 
while serving the industry with high performance and free space data and services. The 
same is  valid for  Copernicus  that offers a free,  open and  reliable service that results  in 
leadership and visibility for the EU, thus fostering scenarios of collaboration and enhance 
its soft power. Similarly, GOVSATCOM will ensure security communication for critical 

71 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
 
governmental applications, while SSA will protect EU citizens and infrastructure with an 
effort  that  can  only  be  done  jointly  at  EU  level.  The  Programme  strengthens  the 
European position in the global landscape, and also plays a paramount role in the internal 
market. The role of the Programme at global stage has been acknowledge also in the Call 
for  Evidence,  encouraging  to  further  expand  and  strengthen  its  engagement  into 
international  relations.  In  addition,  more  and  more  regulations  are  drafted  with  the 
support  of  space  assets:  examples  span  from  healthcare,  aviation,  maritime  safety, 
disaster resilience, agriculture, green mobility, and energy security. 

4.3.  Is the Space Programme still relevant? 

The relevance of the Programme is verified through user needs satisfaction, namely in 
how far the space services are still addressing them and their evolutions. 

Article 102 of the Regulation requires the analysis of “the evolution of needs of the users 
of  the  Programme”,  the  evolution  of  data  and  services  offered  by  the  competitors  (for 
Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus), the evolution of available capacities for sharing and 
pooling (for SSA and GOVSATCOM), the need for changing pricing policy and the need 
for additional space or ground infrastructure to address the user needs”. 

User  needs  are  constantly  monitored  during  the  implementation  of  the  Programme, 
through different  tools  and fora.  Users are different,  depending on the components and 
the  services  offered,  therefore  their  needs  are  collected  and  addressed  by  the  entity 
entrusted to their implementation. Nevertheless, as highlighted before, many applications 
depend  simultaneously  on  Galileo  and  Copernicus  services  and  some  convergence  is 
taking place at user level. For example, the User Consultation Platform (UCP)64 led by 
EUSPA, was established to cover only GNSS users, but with the entry into force of the 
Regulation, has been extended also to Earth Observation users.  

A.  Relevance of Galileo and EGNOS  

Evolution of the needs and of additional infrastructure 

As described above, EUSPA runs a User Consultation Platform (UPC) to identify and 
understand  the  evolving  needs  of  the  users’  communities  and  prepares  since  2010  a 
GNSS Market Report; now the EO and GNSS Market Report. This platform supports 
EUSPA  interventions  to  take  into  account  the  needs  and  requirements  of  end  users, 
ensuring that space services provided by the Agency are driven by these needs. It follows 
up with annual public reports65 on several sectors.  

Galileo and EGNOS are used for many applications in different fields. Some sectors rely 
heavily  on  it  for  positioning,  such  as  the  transportation  sector,  emergency,  or  raw 

64 EUSPA Releases User Consultation Platform 2022 Reports 

65 Ibid. 

72 

 
 
materials.  Some  instead  need  accurate  timing,  such  as  the  energy,  finance,  or 
infrastructure.  Each  sector  or  even  application  has  critical 
telecommunication 
performances to  meet,  and they vary among  the applications.  In fact,  in safety  critical 
and  liability  critical  applications  (e.g.,  for  the  aviation  sector),  the  main  performance 
requirements are related to accuracy and integrity of the signal, which must be precise 
and reliable. The relevant user needs are generally met by current generation of Galileo 
and  EGNOS,  however  two  new  user  needs  were  identified  thanks  to  the  regular 
monitoring and consultations, that allowed the Commission and the entrusted entities to 
promptly  react.  In  fact,  there  are  needs  –  particularly  from  the  transport  sector  –  that 
cannot  be  met  by  the  current  generation  of  Galileo  or  EGNOS.  Therefore,  it  is  in  the 
interest  of  the  EU  to  deploy  and  enter  into  service  Galileo  Second  Generation  and 
EGNOS V3 as soon as possible to allow the user community to leverage the service. The 
first  is  the need for emerging safety  critical  use  cases in  transport  applications, such as 
precision  port  approaches  in  maritime.  The  second  gap  is  the  need  for  a  dedicated 
EGNOS service in rail, similar to the one in aviation. While these requirements exceed 
that of the current system, they are being addressed in a stepwise approach with a target 
for full services with EGNOS V3.  

Pricing policy and competitors 

Galileo services should remain free in the future.  Services were originally conceived to 
be offered at  a fee, but  this approach has been discarded subject  to  further analyses.  In 
particular, the following reasons support the free provision of services: 

•  Historic reasons: satellite navigation services have been provided freely, starting 
with  GPS.  Any  changes  to  the  Galileo  services  provided  for  free  would  have  a 
negative  effect  on  public  authorities  (who  are  captive  users  and  have  limited 
budgets)  and  in  general  on  other  users  too  (private  or  commercial,  who  are  not 
captive and would become dependent of non-EU free service providers).  

•  Socio-economic benefits: In the case of added-value services specifically offered 
by  Galileo  (e.g.,  High  Accuracy  and  Authentication),  it  was  estimated  that  the 
social  benefits  of  allowing  free  use  of  the  services  were  higher  than  in  the  fee-
based  scenario.  From  the  economic  perspective,  value  creation  by  the  private 
sector derived from the free availability of such features, overcame the potential 
losses by a commercial exploitation of the services. 

•  Operational constraints: finally, operational constraints to put in place a fee-based 
scheme,  including  potential  user  access  control,  were  a  deterrent  for  the 
implementation  of  fee-based  schemes.  The  new  architecture  would  be  costly  to 
implement and maintain. 

•  Finally, it is difficult to argue that live saving services such as the Galileo SAR 

Service or the future EWSS should be available only via fee. 

Galileo is one of four GNSS available. GPS and Glonass are older systems, while Galileo 
and Beidou are newer and similar to each other. Of the four systems, Galileo has more 
differentiating features that sets it apart (e.g., HAS, PRS, Authenticated Service). While 

73 

 
they provide similar services and target the same users, the four systems cannot be said to 
be  in  competition.  On  the  contrary,  more  satellites  in  orbit  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
civilian end user, so the systems can be said to be complementary.  

The SBAS are also not competitive since they target different geographic areas. They are 
fully interoperable and therefore complementary as the wider the coverage of SBAS, the 
more benefit there is to the end user. 

B.  Relevance of Copernicus 

Evolution of the needs and of additional infrastructure 

The  Copernicus  User  Forum  provides  inputs  to  the  Commission  regarding  the 
definition and validation of user requirements, and it is responsible for the coordination 
of  the  Copernicus  programme  with  its  public  sector  users  (Copernicus  core  users).  In 
April 2021 the Commission established the Knowledge Centre on Earth Observation 
(KCEO)  that  brings  together  15  different  DGs  having  and  interest  in  using  Earth 
Observation  data  and  services  from  Copernicus  in  their  policymaking,  with  the  aim  to 
incentivise  the  uptake  of  Earth  Observation  in  the  EU  policies.  Assessments  of  initial 
needs  and  requirements  have  been  undertaken  or  are  ongoing  for  areas  such  as 
biodiversity,  urban  climate  adaptation,  and  compliance  assurance.  Furthermore,  each 
entrusted  entity,  including  ESA,  collects  needs  and  requirements  from  the  user 
community it interacts directly with, through user support desk, workshops, surveys, and 
events, to provide actionable recommendations to guide the evolution of the service. 

Since 2020, the User Consultation Platform run by EUSPA includes Earth observation, 
bringing together the users’ community to share their experiences and needs, and discuss 
market  trends  in  various  domains.  Following  two  previous  issues  of  the  Copernicus 
Market Report 66 prepared by the Commission, in 2022 EUSPA issued the first EO and 

66 Copernicus – Market information 

74 

Technical CoordinationSentinels mission opsContributing missionsFrom EU member statesCoordinated by the European Environment AgencyLandMarine environment Atmosphere Climate changeEmergency ManagementSecurityImplemented by the following Entrusted EntitiesEU member states and foreign partnersSERVICE COMPONENTSPACE COMPONENTIN-SITU COMPONENTCOORDINATION AND MANAGEMENTUSER UPTAKEUser Forum 
 
 
GNSS  market  Report67  to  presents  an  overview  of  the  entire  downstream  space 
application  market,  main  trends,  market  size  and  revenues.  It  further  provides  a  global 
industry overview and main trends, as well as a general description of what Copernicus 
and  EGNSS  encompass.  Finally,  it  showcases  how  EO  and  GNSS  play  a  role  across 
general policy and market trends.  

Regarding the user needs collection and implementation, the entire process is continuous 
and exhaustive, taking into account inputs from multiple sources and following a bottom-
up approach, placing the user at the centre of the programme to provide a more holistic 
view of user needs.   

At  a  high  level,  out  of  the  ~40  applications  that  were  assessed  during  the  evaluation, 
around half the applications were identified to still have at least one gap in user needs. 
However,  nearly  90%  of  these  gaps  are  planned  to  be  addressed  or  are  under 
consideration.  Therefore,  it  can  be  deduced  that  over  90%  of  identified  user  needs  are 
either  being  met  or  planned  to  be  met  through  the  current  and  planned  Copernicus 
missions68.  

Pricing policy and competitors 

The pricing policy post-2020 has already been extensively analysed in a separate study69 
that confirmed that the free, full, and open data policy of Copernicus is the most suitable 
pricing policy for the following reasons: 

1.  Socio-economic benefits brought by Copernicus to end users and beneficiaries of 
its  data  and  services,  when  monetized,  largely  outweigh  the  costs  of  the 
component  by  3.7  times,  even  with  the  data  and  services  being  open  and  freely 
available. 

2.  Copernicus provides public services used by citizens and governments across the 
globe (e.g., to fight climate change, protect the ecosystems, as well as to prevent 
and manage natural disasters). 

3.  Stimulation of the industry: Copernicus aims to stimulate the industry to develop 
products  and  added  value  services  based  on  Copernicus  data  that  are  public  or 
commercially viable.  

4.  International  obligations:  In  accordance  with  the  UN  Resolution  41/65  on  the 
Principles  Relating  to  Remote  Sensing  of  the  Earth  from  Outer  Space  Remote 

67 EUSPA - EO & GNSS Market Report 

68 CHIME (Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission for the Environment), CIMR (Copernicus Imaging 
Microwave Radiometer), CO2M (Copernicus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Monitoring), CRISTAL 
(Copernicus  Polar  Ice  and  Snow  Topography  Altimeter),  LSTM  (Copernicus  Land  Surface 
Temperature Monitoring), ROSE-L (Copernicus L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar). 

69 Study on the Copernicus Data Policy Post-2020 

75 

 
 
sensing  activities  shall  be  carried  out  for  the  benefit  and  in  the  interests  of  all 
countries. 

Worldwide,  even  if  the  US  does  not  have  one  comprehensive  programme  such  as 
Copernicus,  the  Landsat  Program70,  which  provides  land  observations,  and  National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites71, providing environmental 
observations could be considered as a competitor in terms of the data provided. However, 
Copernicus  is  the  only  one  to  offer  radar  imagery  with  good  resolution72  and  with 
comparable  annual  budgets73.  Landsat  and  NOAA  are  considered  complementary  to 
Copernicus  rather  than  competitors  and  help  provide  better  insights  for  all  user 
communities, when combined. 

In comparison with other providers, the United States Landsat and the National Oceanic 
and  Atmospheric  Administration  have  an  open  and  free  data  policy,  allowing  industry 
and academia to produce benefits for the society at low cost and high efficiency. 

C.  Relevance of Space Situational Awareness 

Evolution of the user needs and need for additional infrastructure 

For SST, the user needs have been gathered by Sat Cen and this work is today continued 
by EUSPA. Preliminary results show roughly 100 user needs collected through feedback 
campaigns,  meetings  (physical  or  virtual)  and  with  EUSPA’s  UCP  stakeholder 
consultation.  Overall,  around  80%  of  the  identified  needs  are  currently  being  covered 
with the service. For the remaining 20% either it is not possible to fulfil them because of 
the current system technical constraints (impossible to detect extremely small objects) or 
of  a  lack  of  budget  (and  vice-versa).  The  current  SST  component  is  based  on  an 
aggregation  of  the  resources  available  at  EU  level,  combining  Member  States 
capabilities,  and  it  allows  to  use  available  assets  under  defined  conditions  with  the  EU 
budget covering the part of the operational and research costs. The expected evolution is 
an  overall  growth  in  the  capacities,  both  from  institutional  (Member  States)  and 
commercial side. 

70 The Landsat Program is run jointly by NASA and the USGS and provides space-based data essential for 
making  informed  decisions  about  Earth’s  resources  and  environment.  The  program  has  been  active 
since 1972, however, data has only been freely available to users since 2008 due to a policy change 

71  The  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  is  a  scientific  and  regulatory  agency  based  in 
Washington,  D.C.  The  agency  is  charged  with  forecasting  weather,  monitoring  oceanic  and 
atmospheric conditions, charting the seas, protecting of marine mammals and managing fishing in the 
exclusive U.S. economic zone. As of today, NOAA owns or operates a total of 17 satellites 

72  15m  multispectral  resolution  from  Landsat,  5m  radar  resolution  from  Copernicus,  10m  multispectral 

resolution for Copernicus 

73 US had USD 1.6 billion in 2022 while Copernicus had EUR 2.1 billion in contract value between 2021 

and 2022 

76 

 
 
Regarding the future, the user needs are expected to evolve, to adapt to the current trends 
of increasing of space debris and of large constellations, and the potential intensification 
of aggressive or unfriendly actions in space. With the anticipated development of an EU 
Approach Space Traffic Management (STM), the EU SST capabilities are expected to 
be enhanced to effectively tackle the challenges  associated with STM, along with STM 
regulatory aspects and operational aspects. 

For  NEO  and  SWE,  the  services  are  not  yet  operational.  Therefore,  the  methodology 
was  slightly  different  as  it  was  not  feasible  to  make  direct  comparisons  between  the 
service and the user needs, and the focus was placed on examining the link between user 
needs and service definition. For SWE, the exact number of services is not determined 
yet however, at least one service is foreseen, considering the current budget allocated to 
the SWE sub-component. 

For NEO, no user need assessment has been done yet. The topics chosen are identified in 
the Regulation to strike a balance between the interest for the community and the budget 
allocated to the component. 

Pricing policy  

Space  Situational  Awareness  sub-components  provides  (SST)  or  will  provide  (SWE, 
NOE) services free of charge, as they are expected to be public services or used by public 
authorities  for  the  safety  of  EU,  national  and  commercial  infrastructures  (space  and 
ground) infrastructures. 

For SST pricing: SST was designed in order to protect Galileo and Copernicus satellites. 
With the EU as main user, charging does not make sense. For other users implementing a 
pricing mechanism could pose great challenges given that SST relies 99% on information 
from third-parties radars and telescopes to deliver its services. On top, SST provided by 
the EU is considered as a public service providing key information to ensure that space as 
a  global  commons  is  kept  as  far  as  possible  free  from  new  debris  created  through 
collisions of satellites with existing debris or other satellites. Also, on the US side SST 
data  are  provided  free  to  stakeholders.  Whilst  the  US  is  currently  working  on  an 
evolution of the system, it intends to continue offering basic services for free. 

For SWE pricing: Meteorological-like services are primarily designed as public services. 
Customized services could be added for various sectors such as transportation or defence, 
tailoring the service to specific needs within these sectors. However, for now, and due to 
the objectives of SWE future service – mitigate the risks associated with extreme space 
weather events and safeguard systems and technologies in orbit and on Earth - charging 
is not possible. 

For NEO pricing: The user base is very limited, and these users are almost exclusively 
relying  on  public  budgets  for  their  functioning  (with  no  margin  to  payments  or 
subscriptions).  

77 

 
D.  Relevance of GOVSATCOM 

Evolution of the needs and infrastructure and need of additional infrastructure 

Regarding  GOVSATCOM,  a  large  survey  led  by  EUSPA  was  done  within  the 
ENTRUSTED74 project aimed at identifying user needs and use cases that permitted to 
build  the  baseline.  EUSPA  is  now  maintaining  up  to  date  knowledge  of  these 
requirements. 

However, due to the particularly sensitive nature of the GOVSATCOM component, the 
results  of  this  survey  are  classified.  For  this  reason,  this    section  will  focus  on  a  high-
level  assessment  mainly  describing  the  process  used  in  gathering  the  necessary  inputs.  
The  High-level  Civil  Military  User  Needs 
for  Governmental  Satellite 
Communications75  (2017) served as a baseline for the ENTRUSTED work and for the 
creation of  a user representatives’ network which actively participated in the survey, the 
largest survey conducted in this area with approximately 140 respondents. 

Even  though  the  precise  results  are  classified,  overall,  it  is  concluded  publicly  that 
GOVSATCOM  will  meet  a  substantial  percentage  of  the  user  requirements.  However,  
the  survey  and  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  the  IRIS2 
Regulation identified gaps, particularly  as regards low latency. In fact, there are no EU 
Low Earth Orbit and Medium Earth Orbit operational or planned capabilities that could 
meet  the  current  evolving  governmental  user  needs.  Therefore,  the  available  satcom 
resources of EU GOVSATCOM need to be complemented with new capabilities meeting 
these needs. To cater for such situation, the Programme includes provision for a decision 
on  a  second  phase  of  the  GOVSATCOM  implementation  which  involves  the 
development of additional bespoke space infrastructure or capacities through one or more 
public-private partnerships. In 2023, the co-legislators have agreed to establish the Union 
Secure Connectivity Programme (IRIS2) with the adoption of the IRIS2 Regulation. The 
services offered by IRIS2 will complement those offered by GOVSATCOM.  

Approximately EUR 220 million were reallocated from the Space Programme to finance 
IRIS2,  resulting  into  descoping  or  cancellation  of  certain  activities  under  the  Space 
Programme.  Consequently,  the  budget  available  to  purchase  capacities  to  provide 
GOVSATCOM  services  (pooling  of  resources  financed  by  the  Programme)  has  been 
reduced,  thereby  limiting  the  volume  of  services  offered  to  governmental  users. 
Additionally,  Space  Weather  and  Near-Earth  Object  activities  have  been  affected,  
resulting in the postponement of initially planned services in these areas.  

It is however important to note that synergies were fostered to limit the potential overall 
cost impact of implementing IRIS2. Amongst others, we could mention that: 

74 ENTRUSTRED Project 

75 Study on High-level Civil Military User Needs for Governmental Satellite Communications 

78 

 
 
•  The  provision  of  EU  satellite  communication  services  for  governmental  users  is 
based on the development of a ground infrastructure (GOVSATCOM Hub) that pool 
together different existing and future satellite systems and share the resources among 
governmental users. The underlying satcom capacity and services will be provided by 
Member  States'  national  assets  and  by  security-accredited  commercial  satcom 
providers.  The  governmental  services  of  IRIS²  will  also  be  provided  through  the 
GOVSATCOM Hub.  Hence, the GOVSATCOM Hub is an essential element of the 
IRIS² service provision, where users will be able to select from a wide  catalogue of 
services.  

•  Furthermore,  the  contract  for  the  development  of  ground  infrastructure  for  the 
GOVSATCOM  Hub  also  includes  the  development  of  the  Security  Monitoring 
facility that will ensure the security of IRIS². 

•  Finally, efforts to promote the adoption of services within the governmental market 
are  shared  between  IRIS²  and  GOSATCOM,  as  they  target  the  same  user 
communities,  such  as  border  guards,  police,  military,  civil  protection,  the  maritime 
and diplomatic communities within Member States, as well as within EU institutions 
and agencies. 

Pricing policy  

The GOVSATCOM pricing policy has been defined in implementing act76, approved in 
May  2023,  and  will  consist  in  a  system  of  tokens,  tailored  to  the  needs  of  each 
participant, to facilitate the sharing and prioritization. The system will be completed by a 
pay-on-demand  part  for  additional  demands.  This  pricing  policy  guarantees  to  provide 
secure connectivity to users at no cost but remains flexible enough to be adapted to the 
needs of each use through the additional pay-on-demand part.  

E.  General remarks on relevance 

The Programme serves a wide variety of needs of different users. Users’ requirements 
change  and  evolve  constantly,  and  the  evaluation  found  that  the  entrusted  entities 
continuously  track,  collect,  and  meet  user  needs.  Only  a  small  percentage  of  the  user 
requirements as indicated by those exploiting the space services of the Programme could 
not yet be met by those exploiting. This result was expected since most of them are due 
to  financial  or  technical  constraints.  Nonetheless,  most  of  the  gaps  are  already  being 
addressed  by  upcoming  technologies,  products  and  satellites:  examples  are  the 

76 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/1055 of 30 May 2023 setting out the rules on the sharing 
and  prioritisation  of  satellite  communication  capacities,  services,  and  user  equipment  to  fulfil  the 
function referred to in Article 66(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
Copernicus  Expansion  missions  or  EGNOS  V3.  Therefore,  the  Programme  yields 
significant strategic advantages for the European Union and will offer even more in the 
near future.  

As  regards  the  pricing  policy,  the  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  current  free  pricing 
policy  for  Galileo,  EGNOS,  Copernicus,  SST  services,  and  GOVSATCOM  should 
remain unchanged due to various reasons. This has also to be further recognised by the 
respondents of the Call for Evidence. Charging for these services could negatively impact 
public  authorities  and  other  users,  violate  existing  agreements  and  licenses,  and 
contradict  the  purpose  of  the  Programme.  Additionally,  charging  for  certain  services  is 
not feasible due to their reliance on third-party data sources, limited user bases, and their 
essential role as public services in protecting satellites.  

80 

 
 
 
5.  MAIN FINDINGS CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF EUSPA 

The  findings  of  the  IA  which  was  undertaken  in  order  to  prepare  the  current  Space 
Regulation, called for governance simplification by streamlining the management of the 
implementation  of  the  actions  and  the  role  of  the  main  stakeholders  (the  Commission, 
GSA,  ESA  and  Member  States),  bringing  coherence  and  synergies.  Thus,  since  its 
creation,  the  Agency  has  undergone  significant  changes  from  the  Galileo  Joint 
Undertaking to the European GNSS Agency (GSA) and subsequently with its evolution 
to  EUSPA.  EUSPA  came  with  an  expanded  mandate  that  requires  the  Agency  to 
contribute  to  several  components  of  the  EU  Space  Programme,  such  as  Galileo, 
Copernicus, EGNOS, SSA, and GOVSATCOM; furthermore, the IRIS² Regulation (EU) 
2023/588 also includes tasks for the Agency.  

The  mission  of  the  Agency  is  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Space 
Programme,  and  to  act  as  the  user-oriented  operational  agency  of  the  Programme, 
facilitating  the  delivery  of  secure  space-related  data,  information,  and  services  to 
maximise the socio-economic benefits provided to users in the EU and around the world, 
including governmental and downstream services77. 

In order to achieve its overall goals and aspirations, EUSPA’s tasks spread across three 
main pillars: 

•  Exploitation,  including  the  management,  operation,  maintenance,  continuous 
improvement,  and  evolution  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS;  the  development  of  the 
GOVSATCOM Hub; and the operation of the SST Front Desk; 

•  Security,  including  the  operational  security  and  security  monitoring  of  Galileo  and 
EGNOS, and the security accreditation for all components of the Space Programme 
and for IRIS2 through its Security Accreditation Board; and 

•  Market-uptake,  including  the  communication,  market  development  and  promotion 
activities  of  services  linked  to  Galileo,  EGNOS,  and  of  the  data,  information  and 
services  offered  by  Copernicus,  GOVSATCOM  and  SSA,  without  prejudice  of 
activities performed by entrusted entities and the Commission. 

Across  the  above  pillars,  EUSPA  delivers  a  series  of  core  and  delegated  tasks, 
determined  in  the  Article  29  of  the  Regulation,  and  summarised  in  its  Strategic 
Objectives: 

•  Ensuring the security accreditation for Galileo, EGNOS, Copernicus, GOVSATCOM 

and SSA (core task, Art. 29.1(a)). 

•  Ensuring the operational security of Galileo and EGNOS (core task, Art. 29.1(b)); 
•  Ensuring the operation of the GSMC (core task, Art. 29.1(b)). 
•  Performing the tasks related to the Galileo PRS (core task, Art. 29.1(b)); 

77 EUSPA Single Programming Document 2023-2025 

81 

 
 
•  Ensuring the promotion, market development and communication of the services of 
Galileo,  EGNOS  and  Copernicus  (core  task,  Art.  29.1(c,  d))  without  prejudice  of 
activities performed by entrusted entities and the Commission. 

•  Ensuring  the  delivery  of  the  services  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  (delegated  task,  Art. 

29.2(a)). 

•  Ensuring the coordination of user-related aspects of GOVSATCOM (delegated task, 

• 

Art. 29.2(b)). 
Implementing  R&D  activities  in  the  context  of  Horizon  Europe  and  Fundamental 
Elements (delegated task, Art. 29.2(c)); and 

•  Undertaking User Uptake activities in relation to GOVSATCOM and SSA (delegated 

task, Art. 29.2(d)). 

The Agency’s Headquarters are in the Czech Republic, with teams also in the GSMC in 
France and Spain, the Galileo Reference Centre (GRC) in The Netherlands, the European 
GNSS Service Centre in Spain, and in Toulouse and Brussels. 

5.1. Assessment of the implementation of the entrusted tasks to EUSPA 

The  evaluation  of  EUSPA’s  entrusted  tasks  has  been  developed  throughout  the  whole 
Staff  Working  Document,  where  the  different  components  of  the  Programme  are 
analysed  across  the  five  better  regulation  criteria.  EUSPA  is  a  key  actor  in  the 
implementation of the Programme, and it contributes to the fulfilment of its objectives. 

In  case  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS  the  Commission  has  delegated  the  operational 
management  of  both  components  to  EUSPA  that  oversees  how  Galileo  and  EGNOS 
infrastructure  is  used  and  ensures  that  services  are  delivered  as  planned  and  without 
interruption.  EUSPA  completed  these  entrusted  tasks  without  major  delays  providing 
Galileo  services  with  minimal  incidents,  ensuring  the  security  of  Galileo  and  EGNOS. 
However,  areas  for  the  improvement  have  been  identified  such  as  implementing  cyber 
requirements  and  addressing  delays  in  the  development  and  deployment  of  Galileo 
infrastructure,  notably  in  the  space  segment.  But  as  most  of  the  delays  are  related  the 
external factors like technical problems of industry and the launcher crisis, it is difficult 
for EUSPA to fully mitigate these kinds of delays. Delays are expected also for EGNOS 
V3 and its services due to issues with site procurement and industry delays, but EUSPA 
has taken steps to  mitigate these delays. As  regards  EUSPA downstream activities  on 
Galileo and EGNOS, they are related to the development and evolution of fundamental 
technological  elements,  such  as  chipsets,  receivers,  and  antennas.  These  tasks  are 
addressed in a complementary way both under the Programme and under Horizon Europe 
and  are  instrumental  to  finance  the  future  generations  of  EU  Space  infrastructure  and 
ensure  the  uptake  of  the  services  provided.  EUSPA  may  experience  delays  in  making 
payments  to  beneficiaries  due  to  the  long  and  thorough  review  process.  Efforts  are 
underway  to  improve  these  internal  processes  and  enhance  communication  with  the 
beneficiaries. 

82 

 
For the implementation of Copernicus, EUSPA is entrusted to support the development 
of downstream and integrated applications based on Copernicus. While most of the tasks 
were  implemented  as  planned,  the  development  of  Copernicus  demonstrators  was 
delayed due to a high number of proposals, leading to project kick-off postponement. The 
delays  will  not  affect  the  overall  implementation,  as  the  budget  will  not  be  exceeded. 
Additionally, they have allowed for more time to network and raise awareness before the 
launch of the second call by EUSPA. 

For  the  SSA  component,  EUSPA  was  entrusted  to  support  the  Commission  as  far  as 
project management and technical matters are concerned, in particular in preparation of 
the  operational  users’  management/coordination,  The  responsibility  to  manage  and 
operate the SST Front Desk was transferred on 1 July 2023 but EUSPA worked already 
before together with Sat Cen to ensure a smooth transition.   

Regarding  GOVSATCOM,  EUSPA  has  been  entrusted  with  the  procurement  and  the 
setting-up of the secure operational ground segments (GOVSATCOM Hubs), in addition 
to other tasks related to support for the definition of technical requirements, downstream 
activities and for security related activities.  Despite the initial delays caused by the setup 
of  the  procurement  process  and  the  definition  of  the  procurement  conditions,  EUSPA, 
together  with  the  Commission  managed  to  mitigate  this  risk  and  the  activities  are 
currently running smoothly. 

5.2. Assessment of the implementation of the EUSPA core tasks 

This  section  addresses  all  core  tasks  that  were  not  evaluated  elsewhere  in  this  Staff 
Working  Document,  i.e.:  Security  accreditation;  operational  security  for  Galileo  and 
EGNOS;  Operation  of  the  GSMC;  PRS;  Communication,  promotion,  and  market 
development; Agency Management. 

The targets linked to each core task activities as well as a set of indicators to be reached, 
have been defined from the EUSPA Single Programming Documents 2020-2022, 2021-
2023,  2022-2024  and  2023-2025  as  well  as  the  Annual  Activity  Report  of  2021  and 
2022.  More  details  are  available  in  the  appendix.  Since  2023  results  were  not  yet 
available, the evaluation covers the years 2021-2022. 

Core task 1: Security accreditation 

The  SAB  operates  independently  and  autonomously  within  EUSPA,  oversees  security 
accreditation  activities,  and  acts  as  the  security  accreditation  authority  for  all  the 
components of the Programme.  The security accreditation task consists of 7 objectives, 
each  with  associated  activities,  indicators,  and  annual  targets.  These  objectives  include 
operating  effective  administration,  providing  support  to  SAB  management,  issuing 
necessary  authorization  statements,  managing  subordinate  bodies  and  expert  groups, 
conducting independent security assessments, ensuring key assurance, and preparing for 
new regulatory responsibilities. 

83 

 
The targets for all 7 objectives have been met (100%) in 2021 and 2022. The objective 
related to the plan for initial accreditation activities for Copernicus, GOVSATCOM and 
SSA was achieved in 2022. 

Core task 2: Operational security for Galileo & EGNOS 

This core task deals with ensuring the security of Galileo and EGNOS and includes two 
types of subtasks - the threat and risk analysis, and the operational security. 

The evaluation Galileo Threat and Risk Analysis is based on four indicators. Each of 
these indicators refer to reports that EUSPA needs to provide for accreditation activities 
and meetings with the SAB. For 2023, these tasks and the production of these document 
is  progressing  well  and  without  problems.  Only  the  final  document  (Galileo  Security 
Accreditation Milestones and Schedule) has some external dependencies, as it is reliant 
on inputs from external stakeholders. For 2022, two indicators were fully  met, one was 
not assessed under the core task, and the fourth one was met at 75%, due to changes in 
deployment activities and site status. There were no targets set for 2021. 

The  EGNOS  Threat  and  Risk  Analysis  is  based  on  five  indicators.  One  of  the 
indicators related to the compliance to the high-level security requirements is still in the 
definition stage, as these requirements are not yet finalised. There were no targets set in 
2021,  while  in  2022,  the  indicators,  related  to  number  of  accreditations,  Services  and 
System  Security  Plan  and  Security  Accreditation  Milestones  and  Schedule  were  fully 
met.  The  indicator  related  to  EGNOS  V3  sites  was  met  89%,  with  14  of  the  16 
milestones being concluded in 2022, and outstanding 2 have been being implemented in 
Q1 2023 due to status of the relevant sites. 

The evaluation  of  Galileo Operations Security and EGNOS Operational  Security is 
based on two indicators for Galileo, while for EGNOS is based on three. For both there 
were no targets set for 2021 and all targets were met at 100% in 2022. 

Core task 3: Operation of the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre 

This core task involves  operating the  GSMC  and encompasses  five  activities related to 
ensuring the security of Galileo services and operations, engineering activities in support 
of  deployment  and  operations,  availability  of  hosting  services,  continuity  of  service  of 
GSMC operations, and local security. Targets for four out of five objectives were met for 
both  2021  and  2022,  with  regular  tests  conducted  on  switching  the  primary  site  and 
continuous  availability  of  the  GSMC.  There  was  only  one  delay  in  2021  for  hosting 
services since the Spanish site was not ready on time due to non-compliance of buildings. 
However, the 2022 targets for both sites were met. 

Core task 4: Galileo Public Regulated Service Activities 

There  is  only  one  objective  of  core  task  4  that  focuses  on  the  implementation  of  PRS 
activities, with two indicators related to timely review of the Agency PRS management 

84 

 
plans and level of compliance to the specific arrangement in handling of PRS information 
and items.  The Agency  has fulfilled  its obligations towards the specific arrangement  to 
the  maximum  extent  possible,  reporting  regularly  on  the  handling  of  PRS  information 
and items  within the Agency, and reviewing the  PRS management plans for 2023. The 
compliance  indicator,  slightly  below  target  in  2021  and  2022,  was  mainly  affected  by 
dependencies  from  actors  external  to  the  Agency,  for  which  EUSPA  has  requested  the 
Commission to adjust the arrangement in place to better frame the activities. 

Core task 5: Communication, promotion, and market development  

This core task encompasses activities related to market and technology monitoring, user 
scheme management, market development by user segment, and targeted communication 
initiatives to ensure an effective and efficient communications strategy.  The assessment 
covers  the  years  2021  and  2022,  since  data  for  2023  were  not  yet  available.  For  these 
years, it encompasses 14 objectives78 and the targets for 12 of them were fully met (. As 
regards objective related to the market development in Agriculture and Forestry, in 2021 
all  targets  were  met,  while  in  2022,  the  percentage  of  EGNOS  receivers  in  the  overall 
number  of  models  for  Agriculture  and  Forestry  was  93%,  slightly  below  the  target  of 
97% due to the extension of receiver lifetimes caused by a chip shortage. A chip shortage 
was  also  a  reason  why  the  percentage  of  Galileo  receivers  in  the  overall  number  of 
Critical Infrastructures models was slightly below the target in 2022 (objective related to 
market  development  in  Insurance  and  Finance,  Infrastructures,  Energy,  and  Raw 
Materials). 

Core task 6: Agency management  

The  Agency  Management  core  task  aims  at  supporting  EUSPA’s  core  and  delegated 
mission  by  providing  support  in  areas  of  legal,  procurement,  grants,  contracts,  finance 
and  budget,  human  resources  management,  ICT,  facility  management  and  logistics.  It 
encompasses 18 objectives with associated activities, indicators, and targets, while one of 
them  (related  to  the  support  the  electronic  exchange  of  classified  information)  is  EU 
restraint).  The  targets  for  almost  all  18  objectives  were  met,  except  two  objectives:  for 
the objective related to measuring and improving the quality of EUSPA processes, where 
one  of  3  targets  concerning  the  implementation  of  open  actions  was  in  2021  slightly 
below  the  targeted  percentage  (94.5%).  In  case  of  the  objective  related  to  the  statutory 
obligations of the Agency, one target has not been reached in 2022 – the timely execution 
of the corresponding yearly audits – due to a delay in the release of external audits and 
the need to launch a second audit on Galileo.   

78  Programme  market  development  for  aviation  &  drones,  road  &  automotive,  maritime  &  inland 
waterways, rail, agriculture & forestry, urban development & cultural heritage, consumer & health & 
tourism, insurance & finance, infrastructures & energy & raw materials, governmental use, emergency 
management & humanitarian aid, fisheries & aquaculture, climate & weather& biodiversity, and R&D 
communication 

85 

 
 
For the overview of all the objectives under core tasks with detailed description, please 
see the supporting Study, Section 4.1.2. 

5.3 Independence and autonomy of the Security Accreditation Board 

The Regulation requires the Commission to “assess… the independence and autonomy of 
the Security Accreditation Board” (Article 102.5). 

The  autonomy  and  independence  of  the  SAB  is  addressed  in  the  Regulation  (Articles 
37.i,  78.1,  82.1,  82.2,  83.1,  88.3,  99.2).  Confidentiality  rules  have  been  set  out  in  the 
SAB  Rules  of  Procedure.  Prevention  and  Management  of  the  Conflict  of  Interest  have 
also been set out in the SAB Rules of Procedure.  

A separated department within the Agency (the Security Accreditation Department) was 
created in 2019 to ensure that EUSPA staff under SAB supervision perform their work in 
a manner ensuring autonomy and independence in  relation  to  the other activities of the 
Agency. The staff belonging to that department reports directly to the SAB chairperson 
who exercises their appointing authority power. 

In order to  ensure  the autonomy and independence of the Security  Accreditation Board 
(SAB), the following rules are in place:  

•  Article 16 of the SAB Rules of Procedures, requiring the SAB to immediately inform 
the  Executive  Director,  the  Administrative  Board  and  the  Commission  of  any 
circumstances  that  could  hamper  its  autonomy  or  independence,  as  well  as  that  of 
staff performing the security accreditation activities.  

•  Declarations of Commitments, Interest and Confidentiality as stated in Article 15 of 

the SAB Rules of Procedure.  

•  According  to  Article  81.3  of  the  Regulation  and  Article  4  of  the  SAB  Rules  of 
Procedures, if the circumstances are a result of misconduct by the SAB chairperson 

86 

 
 
or deputy chairperson, the SAB has the power to dismiss them, upon proposal from 
any member with voting rights. Disciplinary measures under Article 86 of the Staff 
Regulations apply in case of staff misconduct). 

In  line  with  the  Regulation,  the  Commission,  as  the  overall  Programme  manager,  is  a 
member of SAB without voting rights. In several cases, SAB decisions added additional 
security  requirements  in  ongoing  contracts,  leading  to  changes  of  the  contractual 
baselines at a late stage, resulting in additional costs and delays in the implementation of 
the contracts.  

5.4. EUSPA’s Conflict of Interest Policy 

In  respect  to  EUSPA’s  Conflict  of  Interest  Policy,  the  requirements  of  the  Regulation 
have been fully fulfilled. Indeed, Article 79 (q) of the Regulation requires the Executive 
Director to draw up an anti-fraud strategy, and article 77(2)(l) requires the Administrative 
Board  to  approve  the  anti-fraud  strategy.  These  obligations  have  been  respected  since 
EUSPA has updated and adopted a new Anti-Fraud Strategy on 25 October 2022.  

Regarding specifically conflict of interest, Article 99 of the Regulation underlines that a 
declaration shall be made by Members of the Administrative Board and of the Security 
Accreditation Board as well as by the Executive Director, seconded national experts and 
observers,  to  declare  the  absence  or  existence  of  any  direct  or  indirect  interests  which 
might  be  considered  prejudicial  to  their  independence.  On  a  procedural  level,  this 
declaration shall be renewed annually and updated whenever necessary. This obligation 
is taken into account in EUSPA’s policy of conflict of interest, e.g.  in the Article 3 of the 
Agency’s  Decision  on  implementing  rules  on  the  prevention  and  management  of 
conflicts  of  interests  with  regards  to  staff  members  and  external  workforce.  Article  20 
also states the importance of paying attention to the management of conflict of interest in 
procurement  procedures  for  innovative  solutions.  Regarding  this  point,  the  EUSPA 
Internal  Control  Coordinator  has  confirmed  that  protocols  are  put  in  place  while 
assessing the conflicts of interest policy (procurement, contract management, selection of 
experts, recruitment boards, post-employment, administrative board members). 

Overall, the Conflict-of-Interest policy is structured around several pillars and adequate 
resources are made available: 

• 

• 

• 

In  relation  to  staff,  contractors  and  detached  national  experts:  a  policy, 
implementing rules, conflict of interest boards have been set up (and active) and 
monitoring is active. 
In relation to departing staff (post-employment, Staff Regulation): implementing 
mechanisms is in place and active. 
In  relation  to  Administrative  Board  members:  specific  conflict  of  interest 
provisions  in  Rules  of  Procedures  have  been  set  up  and  active  monitoring  is  in 
place. 

Furthermore, procedures are in place in the case of a conflict-of-interest suspicion. 

87 

 
 
6.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

6.1 General Conclusions  

All  existing  and  new  EU  space  activities  has  been  brought  for  the  first  time  under  the 
umbrella of a single Programme, establishing a coherent EU space policy and effective 
governance  to  support  the  EU’s  political  priorities,  economic  growth  and  prosperity. 
Despite  internal  and  external  challenges,  the  system  in  place  has  proven  to  work  well 
enabling  a  seamless  transition  of  already  operational  services  of  Galileo,  EGNOS, 
Copernicus and SST, provided under the previous MFF, and offering new or additional 
services,  in  an  effective  way.  The  Programme  has  managed  to  effectively  attract  and 
retain  a  growing  number  of  users  by  demonstrating  its  capability  to  meet  their  diverse 
and changing requirements and by catering to a wide range of  applications and sectors. 
However,  some  entrusted  entities  need  more  time  in  advance  with  better  detailed 
requirements in order to be able to match new user needs. 

In  addition,  the  respondents  of  the  Call  of  Evidence  emphasised  the  need  for  the 
European  Union,  including  through  the  Programme,  to  better  leverage  its  regulatory 
strengths and considerable market size to foster the demand for new space services. The 
implementation  of  tasks  by  the  entrusted  entities  have  been  aligned  well  with  their 
contribution  agreements  and  successfully  implemented  with  minimal  deviations  or 
consequences and with any critical impacts on the services (Section on Effectiveness). 

Despite a challenging environment and the complexity in the quantification of benefits, 
due  also  to  the  fact  that  each  component  has  different  timeframe,  maturity,  users  and 
output, the Programmes’ components are implemented in effectively and efficiently, the 
services are provided in a continuous, secure, and robust way providing significant value 
for  money,  and  users  are  satisfied.  The  activities  were  carried  out  within  the  allocated 
budget and produced benefits much higher than the incurred costs, that were directly and 
indirectly  sustained  for  their  development.  For  the  more  recent  components,  a 
quantitative  assessment  was  not  yet  possible  but  using  proxy  data    indicates  the 
enormous potential once the components are fully operational. The evaluation takes into 
consideration both the investment and spending into the deployment of the infrastructure 
and the provision of the services, and the wider socio-economic benefits resulting from 
their utilisation and exploitation (Section on Efficiency).  

The evaluation has  proved that the EU relevance  of the Programme and its  coherence 
with  other  EU  programme  and  policies  is  unquestioned  as  it  has  been  significantly 
contributing to the EU objectives of green and digital transitions, as well as resilience of 
the Single Market. The Programme enables solutions to tackle global challenges such as 
sustainability and climate change, safety and security, natural disasters and mobility and 
strengthens the EU's role on the international scene as a global space power (Section on 
Coherence).  The  EU’s  space  flagships  Galileo,  EGNOS  and  Copernicus  foster 
innovative  services  that  can  meet  the  needs  of  users  whilst  guaranteeing  European 
competitiveness. They supports security and defence capabilities relying on space-based 

88 

 
services,  and  enhance  safety  and  security  of  the  Union  and  its  Member  States,  and 
reinforce autonomy in areas of strategic importance. This has also been acknowledged by 
some of the Call for Evidence’s respondents and during the meeting of the SDA Expert 
Group (section on Coherence and section on Relevance). 

The EU added value of the Programme results from either EU space systems (space and 
ground  infrastructure)  or  the  pooling  of  a  limited  national  resources  from  individual 
Member  Stets  for  the  benefit  of  the  27  and  the  UE.  EU  space-based  data,  services  and 
information are freely available for the benefit for EU economy, industries, and citizens 
and for Member States’ governmental users (for some specific services). EU added value 
is  further  ensured  by  close  coordination  with  Member  States,  including  in  activities  in 
international organisations such as ESA, EUMETSAT and ECMWF, with which the EU 
space programme cooperates directly. The assessment confirmed that EU added value is 
very  high  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  at  national  or  regional  level.  The 
Programme, by reason of scale, exceeds the financial and technical capacities of a single 
Member  State  and  encompasses  a  pan-European  capacity.  In  addition,  given  the 
requirements  in  terms  of  security  for  the  EU,  all  Member  States  must  be  involved 
(section on EU added Value). 

The  evaluation  demonstrated  that  the  current  free  of  charge  pricing  policy  of  the 
Programme, including Galileo, EGNOS, Copernicus, SST services and GOVSATCOM, 
should  remain  unchanged  for  several  reasons.  In  case  of  Galileo,  any  payment  for  its 
services would negatively impact public authorities and other users, present operational 
challenges,  and  raise  concerns  about  access  to  life-saving  services.  Charging  for 
Copernicus  data  would  violate  existing  agreements  and  licenses  and  go  against  the 
purpose of the Programme to process satellite and in-situ information. Nor the charging 
for  Space  SST,  NEO,  and  SWE  services  is  feasible  due  to  their  reliance  on  third-party 
data  sources,  limited  user  bases,  and  their  fundamental  role  as  public  services  in 
protecting  satellites  and  safeguarding  against  space  debris  and  extreme  space  weather 
events.  Regarding  the  GOVSATCOM  pricing  policy  that  is  defined  in  implementing 
acts, it consists of a token system to enable fair and optimized use of available resources, 
with compensation values based on request priority levels, allowing for the possibility of 
buying  or  donating  tokens  to  facilitate  efficient  resource  use  and  prevent  market 
distortion (section on Relevance). 

Concerning  EUSPA,  the  Agency  has  performed  well  overall  on  its  core  and  entrusted 
tasks under the Programme, as documented in its programming and reporting documents. 
In  addition,  the  Agency  ramped  up  its  competencies  and  capabilities,  including  its 
staffing, to implement the tasks assigned by the Regulation. Nevertheless, further efforts 
could be made in order to further reduce the time to contract (including grants)79 and the 

79 Recently the number of “2-stage” calls has increased slowing down the process. Same effect when using 

“innovation partnership”. 

89 

 
 
 
planning of tenders. Both the implementation of novel procurement approaches, and the 
use of “industry days” and of thematic “Administrative Board Workshops” have proved 
to  be  successful  and  should  be  more  widely  used.  The  Security  Administration  Board 
(SAB)  has  delivered  its  tasks  as  planned.  Improvements  can,  however,  also  be  made 
regarding the SAB, in particular by ensuring an early integration of programmatic aspects 
in the SAB decision making (section on Performance of EUSPA).  

6.2 Lessons learnt 

Regarding  the  evaluation  process,  a  longer  timeframe  would  be  more  appropriate  to 
assess  the  Programme’s  performance  midterm  review.  In  this  case,  the  Regulation 
mandates  the  Commission  to  finalise  the  evaluation  by  mid-2024,  but  due  to  several 
factors  such  as  delay  on  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation,  the  start  of  the  new 
components from scratch and the recollection of data on a quarterly or semestrial base, a 
longer timeframe would have made possible to have a larger amount of data.  

While  the  Programme  has  been  successful  in  meeting  its  objectives,  there  are  some 
challenges  that  need  to  be  further  addressed.  One  significant  issue  is  the  temporary 
absence  of  an  EU  launcher,  which  has  hindered  the  EU's  ability  to  access  space 
independently.  The  cancellation  of  Soyuz  launches  services  and  the  delay  in  the  EU 
launcher  availability  have  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  launch  schedule  for  Galileo 
satellites. In response, the Commission has taken proactive measures to ensure continuity 
and  performance.  As  a  temporary  solution,  it  has  secured  replacement  launches  with  a 
third country provider (SpaceX)  to deploy four Galileo satellites in 2024. However, this 
situation underscores the pressing need for Europe to strengthen its autonomous access to 
space, thereby reducing reliance on non-European providers for satellite launches. On the 
short  term,  the  entry  into  service  of  Ariane  6  and  the  return  to  flight  of  VegaC  would 
match the launching needs of the Galileo and Copernicus constellations. In addition, the 
Commission  is  exploring  possible  ways  of  further  implementing  Article  5  of  the 
Regulation, even if no specific budget was earmarked for this activity. Possible activities 
might regard the aggregation of European institutional demand for launch services from 
all  European  public  actors,  through  digital  aggregation  platform  and  potentially  work 
towards  unified  framework  scheme  and  joint  purchasing.  Other  activities  cover  the 
support to game-changing innovation on launch services, through prizes and grants, and 
the  support  to  critical  ground  infrastructure,  including  testing  and  launching  facilities, 
serving  EU  autonomous  access  to  space.  In  order  to  test  new  policy  initiatives  and 
preparing  the  ground  for  the  adoption  of  future  measures,  the  Commission  is 
implementing some Pilot projects and preparatory actions (PP/PAs) on access to space. 

On procurement, the evaluation highlighted the need to address the inflexibility, length, 
and  overly  detailed  nature  of  the  procurement  processes  and  to  greater  longer-term 
visibility in the industrial procurement of the Programme. The industry claimed that EU 
procurement rules are not flexible enough to adapt to external economic conditions such 
as  raise  of  inflation  and  the  chip  shortages,  causing  delays  in  contracts.  Compared  to 
previous years, inflation has increased since early 2021 and climbed continuously up to a 

90 

 
peak of around 10 % at the end of 2022 (this was felt strongly in the energy sector). The 
industry (especially manufacturing) had expectations that the contracts signed under the 
Programme  would  be  revised  to  align  prices  the  with  the  higher  inflation80,  while  the 
Programme is based on a seven years fixed budget. On the short term, it is not possible to 
change the EU Financial Rules to allow immediate budgetary flexibility, however further 
reflection  is  needed  by  the  EU  budgetary  authority  as  also  recommended  by  a  recent 
study by the European Parliament (see ’The impacts of recent inflation developments on 
the EU finances' study of the European Parliament Budgetary Committee81). 

Moreover,  some  stakeholders  called  for  setting  up  a  system  through  which  the 
Commission could report to the industry on the statistics related to its space procurement 
processes. In addition, to reduce the reporting obligations, the list of KPIs included in the 
Annex of the Regulation could be revised. The Commission has already been empowered 
by  the  Space  Regulation  (Article  101.2)  to  adopt  delegated  acts  in  order  to  amend  the 
Programme’s indicators. 

Regarding competitiveness, initiatives like the Copernicus Dynamic Purchasing System 
(which  streamlined  procurement  and  encouraged  competition  and  SMEs  inclusion  for 
Copernicus  contributing  missions)  should  be  extended.  In  the  SDA  Expert  group, 
Members’ interventions welcomed the new system and suggested extending it to services 
as well. 

The importance of enhancing the resilience and non-dependence of the supply chains 
of the EU space infrastructures has been recognised in the Call for evidence as a possible 
solution against future disruptions.  Stakeholders have urged the Programme to improve 
its resilience and protection of space assets, as also recognized by the EU Space Strategy 
for Security and Defence, that includes several follow up actions. The Commission has 
adopted  the  Economic  Security  Strategy82,  to  promote,  protect  and  partner  on  EU 
competitiveness  and  EU  economic  security,  including  on  space  and  propulsion 
technologies,    while  the  Action  Plan  on  Synergies  between  civil,  defence  and  space 
industries83  established  the  Observatory  of  Critical  Technologies,  “to  provide  regular 
monitoring  and  analysis  of  critical  technologies,  their  potential  applications,  value 
chains,  needed  research  and  testing  infrastructure,  desired  level  of  EU  control  over 
them, and existing gaps and dependencies.” 

On  User  uptake  and  foster  the  demand  for  new  space  services,  the  SOTEU  Letter  of 
intent  2023  called  for  an  EU  Strategy  on  Space  Data  Economy.  In  addition,  the 

80 In some EU Member States, governments managed counter-inflation by state-aid measures 

81 Study ‘Recent inflation developments’ 

82 European Economic Security Strategy 

83 Action Plan on Synergies Between Civil, Defense and Space Industries 

91 

 
 
 
 
Commission  is  preparing  a  Staff  Working  Document  on  EU  Space  Programme  User 
Uptake  Status  to  present  an  analysis  of  the  state  of  the  play  of  the  user  uptake  of 
Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus, and  the Commission with the support of EUSPA, has 
finalised a conceptual framework to measure the EU Space programme benefits. 

92 

 
 
 
ANNEX I: GENERAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG: Directorate General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS) 
2.  Organisation and timing: The Staff Working Document on Mid-term evaluation of 
the implementation of the EU Space Programme and the performance of EU Space 
Programme Agency (EUSPA) is accompanied by the Report from the Commission 
to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  same  topic.  To  take  stock  of  the 
expertise  available  in  other  Commission  services,  an  Inter-Service  Group  (ISG) 
comprising  of  the  following  Directorate-Generals  and  Agencies:  AGRI,  BUDG, 
CINEA, CLIMA, CNCT, COMM, COMP, EAC, ECHO, EEAS, EISMEA, EMPL, 
ENER,  ENVI,  ESTAT,  EUSPA,  FRONTEX,  GROW,  HADEA,  HOME,  HR, 
INTPA,  JRC,  LS,  MARE,  MOVE,  REFORM,  REGIO,  RTD,  SANTE,  SG, 
TAXUD, TRADE was informed and consulted on the evaluation process on 6 June, 
4 October and on 15 December 2023. 

3.  Evidence  used  in  the  interim  evaluation:  In  order  to  assess  the  Effectiveness  of 
the  Programme  the  starting  information  (A)  used  were  KPIs  which  are  collected 
through regular implementation reports (always annual – for the KPIs listed in the 
Regulation,  and  additionally  semestrial  or  quarterly).  The  KPIs  are  collected  in 
electronic  form  (excel,  word,  pdf,  etc)  either  by  the  Commission  (where  the 
programme  is  implemented  in  direct  management)  or  by  agencies  to  whom  the 
entrusted.  The 
implementation 
Space  Programme 
quarterly/semestrial  reports  including  the  KPIs  are  subject  to  approval  by 
Commission  management  and  the  control  is  ensured  since  they  condition  further 
payments to the respective entity. 

budget 

been 

has 

Furthermore, the benefits of the Programme were listed (B), based on economic studies 
or previous impact assessments performed: 

•  Study to examine the socioeconomic impact of Copernicus in the EU (2016). 
•  Study  in  support  of  the  impact  assessment  of  an  EU  GOVSATCOM  initiative 

(2017). 

•  Copernicus ex-ante societal impact assessment (2018). 
•  Copernicus market report (2019). 
• 

Impact Assessment of EGNSS FE R&D in synergy with H2020 and analysis of 
business and technology gap (2021). 

•  Socio-economic impact assessment and accompanying foresight study of selected 
ESA Earth observation activities & Socio-economic impact assessment of ESA's 
ground  systems  engineering  and  operations  activities  and  the  Space  Safety 
programme  for  ESA  (the  two  studies  issued  in  2019  are  public  an  update  was 
performed in 2022 and was available for consultation by the Commission). 

•  An assessment of the possible EU space situational awareness initiative 

Other sources of information were used for statistics of the EU space economy: 

93 

 
•  Structure  of  the  European  Space  Manufacturing  Sector  by  ASD  EUROSPACE 

(2021) 

In order to assess the Efficiency of the Programme the information used was the budget 
allocated for each component. 

In order to  assess the Relevance of the Programme the information used were previous 
Staff Working Documents (Expression of User Needs for the Copernicus Programme) or 
similar acts (ESA Customer Requirements Document for SWE) and previous reports on 
Galileo/EGNOS from EUSPA documenting feedback from stakeholders. Interviews were 
performed  with  staff  from  agencies  implementing  the  programme  to  gather  emerging 
trends  and  demands  of  relevant  user  groups.  Bilateral  interviews  were  also  performed 
with end user community representatives (the interviewees selected were considered the 
best to provide such information based on their track-record in the respective domain). 

In order to  assess the Coherence of the Programme the source of information was data 
gathered  from  public  repositories  documenting  policies  (environmental  and  climate 
change  policies, 
international 
organisations). 

transportation  policies  from  public  authorities  or 

The  EU  added  value  was  based  on  inputs  gathered  through  interviews  or  written 
consultations  (the  interviewees  selected  were  considered  the  best  to  provide  such 
information based on their track-record in the respective domain). 

The EU Space Programme’ evaluation has been selected for scrutiny by the Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board (RSB) in 2024. The Staff Working Document on the interim evaluation 
of the Programme was presented to the RSB on the 14 of February 2024 and received a 
negative opinion. The RSB asked to explain in the Annex 1 of SWD what changes have 
been made compared to the earlier draft, in response to the Board’s recommendations.  

Implementation of the RSB opinion84 

RSB comments 
The  report  does  not  present  clearly  the 
intervention logic and evaluation matrix to 
guide  the  analysis  for  each  component  of 
the programme.  

The  report  does  not  present  and  use  the 
available  evidence  in  a  self-standing  way. 
It  does  not 
the 
programme’s  performance 
terms  of 
effective  and  efficient  delivery  on  its 

sufficiently  assess 

in 

Explanations 

Intervention Logic 

The intervention logic (Section 2) had been 
revised  in  accordance  with  the  comments 
of the RSB. It builds upon the legal text of 
the 
the  Space  Programme  Regulation, 
Impact  Assessment  accompanying 
the 
Commission  proposal  for  the  Regulation 
(IA)  and  the  2016  Space  Strategy  for 
Europe  (the  Space  Strategy).  The  starting 

84 The Regulatory Scrutiny Board gave a negative opinion in writing on 16/02/2024. 

94 

 
 
objectives  based  on 
indicators. 

robust 

impact 

The  report  does  not  clearly  present  the 
methodology  used,  its  assumptions  and 
limitations,  and  does  not  adequately 
distinguish  between 
the  evaluation  of 
actual 
impacts  and  ex-ante  projected 
results. 

report 

should 

include 

reflecting 

(1)  The 
a 
comprehensive  intervention  logic  for  each 
programme  component 
their 
specific  policy  needs  and  better  regulation 
include  all 
requirements.  This  should 
elements  in  such  a  way  as  to  allow  for  a 
full  understanding  of  causality,  identifying 
relationships and dependencies and linking 
the specific objectives to policy actions and 
to  their  output/result/outcome/impact  and 
their  related  indicators.  To  support  the 
analysis  of  the  intervention  logic  and 
evaluation  findings, 
the  report  should 
develop a comprehensive evaluation matrix 
and present it in the annex. 

sufficiently  assess 

(2) The report does not present and use the 
available  evidence  in  a  self-standing  way. 
It  does  not 
the 
programme’s  performance 
terms  of 
effective  and  efficient  delivery  on  its 
objectives  based  on 
impact 
indicators. 

robust 

in 

as 

such 

relevant 

(3) The  report  should  clearly  present  the 
available  evidence,  incorporating  it  from 
all 
the 
sources 
accompanying  study,  earlier  work  and  the 
data  sets  supporting  the  key  performance 
indicators, to render the analysis robust, the 
to 
evaluation  SWD  self  standing  and 
comprehensively 
the 
programme’s  main  achievements  and 
progress towards targets. The report should 
explain  how  the  evidence  is  used  to 

report 

on 

in 

logic 

revised 

activities 

described 

the  evaluation,  mainly 

point  of  the  intervention  logic  consists  in 
the  challenges  identified  in  the  IA  and  in 
the  Space  Strategy  and  justifying  the  EU 
intervention,  i.e.,  the  Regulation  and  the 
Programme.  The  general  and  specific 
objectives of the Regulation are included in 
article  4  of  the  Regulation,  while  Article 
102 of the Regulation clearly identifies the 
criteria  of 
the 
provision of the services and the evolutions 
of  the  users’  needs,  in  complementarity 
with  the  better  regulation  requirements. 
The 
then 
intervention 
illustrates  broadly  how  the  financial  and 
human  inputs,  hence  the  budget  and  the 
different  implementing  actors,  implement 
several 
the 
Regulation and detailed in the Contribution 
Agreements  with  entrusted  entities.  The 
concrete  and  measurable  outputs  of  the 
intervention  are  a  synthesis  of  the  work 
done  by  the  Commission,  EUSPA,  ESA 
and  the  other  entrusted  entities  for  the 
provision  of  the  services  and  their  uptake. 
They 
towards  Key 
Performance  Indicators  identified  both  in 
the  Regulation  (and  based  on  the  IA 
analysis)  and  in  the  different  Contribution 
Agreements. 
  The  activities  and  their 
outputs are assessed in the SWD following 
of 
regulation 
the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency,  coherence, 
EU  added  value  and  relevance.  The  Space 
Programme is embedded in very numerous 
policy actions such as agriculture, forestry, 
transport, 
environmental 
biodiversity  monitoring, 
monitoring, 
urban 
emergency 
development 
as 
and  many 
illustrated in the section on coherence. EU 
space  data  and  services  directly  support 
these  policies  and  contribute  to  the  green 
and  digital  transition  of  the  economy  and 
the  resilience  of  the  EU.  For  each  policy 

management, 

evaluated 

climate 

criteria 

others, 

better 

and 

are 

95 

 
learned. 

substantiate the assessment and findings. It 
should  take  full  ownership  of  all  evidence 
used,  the  methodology  applied,  and  the 
analysis undertaken, up to conclusions and 
It  should  provide  a 
lessons 
comprehensive  narrative  enabling 
the 
understanding  of  the  main  elements  of  the 
unnecessary 
avoiding 
programme, 
on 
technicalities 
the 
and 
programme’s 
achievements 
tangible 
against the points of comparison / baseline 
based on clear performance indicators. 

focusing 

(4) The  analysis  should  clearly  present  the 
methodology  applied,  including  approach, 
assumptions,  quality  and  relevance  of 
evidence,  gaps  and  their  impact  on  the 
evaluation,  estimates  and  calculations. 
Costs  and  benefits  should  be  systemised 
and  triangulated  as  far  as  possible  with 
other  findings.  The  report  should  ensure 
that methodology  presented in  Annex  II is 
aligned with the analysis in the body of the 
document, including the terminology used. 
References to accompanying studies should 
not  substitute  essential  explanations  and 
evidence,  which  should  be  included  in  the 
report.  The  report  must  be  clear  on  the 
reference  period 
this  mid-term 
evaluation,  distinguishing  in  the  analysis 
and  methodology  between  the  results  and 
impacts  effectively  achieved  in  the  period 
under  consideration,  and  those  that  are 
expected,  based  on  ex-ante  models  and/or 
projections.  Limitations 
to  evaluating 
certain  programme  components  which  are 
more recent or still under development, and 
the implications for the assessment of costs 
and  benefits,  should  be  clearly  explained. 
The  report  should  use  the  most  relevant 
key  programme  indicators  on  outcomes, 
results  and  impacts,  demonstrating  the 
programme’s performance evolution. 

for 

there  may  be  sub-categories  and  an 
unlimited  number  or  applications,  outside 
the  scope  of  the  Programme.  This  is  now 
clearly presented in Annex VI of the SWD. 
A  reference  to  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors recommendation on space uptake 
and follow up actions has been added in the 
subsection 3.2 of the SWD.  A sub-section 
on  the  Programme’s  contribution  the  UN 
Sustainable  Goals’ 
implementation  has 
been added (4.1.F as well as Annex VII). 

Evidence 

the 

robustness  of 
findings  of 

the 
reinforce 
To 
conclusions  and 
the 
the 
evaluation,  the  SWD  and  its  annexes  now 
include more elements on the evidence (as 
indicators, evaluation questions, evaluation 
matrix,  benchmarks,  and  limits  of  the 
methodology)  to  ensure  a  self-standing 
presentation.  

therefore  most  of 

As  requested  by  the  RSB  limitations  have 
also  been  indicted,  whereby  the  evidence 
varies  through  the  different  components 
according to their maturity. For example in 
the 
the  case  of  GOVSATCOM,  only 
preparatory  activities  have  been  so  far 
implemented 
the 
indicators  are  not  applicable  yet.  In 
addition,  unlike  other  EU 
funding 
programmes,  the  co-legislators  inserted  in 
the  Regulation  the  deadline  till  when  the 
evaluation  should  be  submitted  –  June 
2024.  The  late  adoption  of  the  Regulation 
in April 2021 and the addition of two new 
components brings with it that the evidence 
is not the same for all components.  

those 
indicators  (KPIs)  used  are 
The 
identified in the Space Regulation (Annex) 
and are based on the findings of the Impact 
Assessment that accompanied the proposal 
for the Space Regulation, mainly based on 

96 

 
the specific objectives of Article 4.2. 

In  addition,  to  reinforce  the  robustness  of 
the evaluation, relevant indicators from the 
Programme  Performance  Statements  have 
been introduced in the SWD - the baseline, 
annual 
term 
(2027) targets. 

implementation  and 

long 

in 

Specific  and  numerous  targets  have  been 
the 
identified  for  each  component 
the 
Contribution  Agreements  with 
entrusted  entities  implementing  the  Space 
Programme  reflecting  the  different  nature 
and  maturity  of  each  component.  More 
details  on  the  KPIs  and  targets  have  been 
added  in  the  SWD  annex  II  and  III  to 
ensure a self-standing evaluation. 

Evaluation Matrix 

The Regulation brings under a single legal 
framework different EU space programmes 
and  initiatives,  but  given  the  difference  of 
management, governance, users and output 
of the different components, the evaluation 
tackles  each  component  separately,  while 
the 
providing  an  overall  picture  of 
Programme’s  benefit  and  performances. 
Therefore,  to  ensure  coherence  within  the 
evaluation, the same evaluation matrix has 
been  repeated  for  each  component  along 
the different better regulation criteria.  

A  comprehensive  evaluation  matrix  has 
been added in Annex II.  

Efficiency 

The  Efficiency  matrix  is  based  on  a  ratio 
between  the  benefits  of  a  programme 
component and the budget allocated to it in 
the Programme. Given the fact that it is not 
possible 
impacts, 
to  measure  actual 
because  the  Programme  has  a  direct  or 
indirect  influence  on  a  virtually  unlimited 

97 

 
number  or  applications,  as  illustrated  in 
Annex  VI  of  the  SWD,  the  benefits  taken 
into  consideration  in  the  SWD  are  macro-
economic  projections  which  have  already 
been  made  public,  based  on  well-
established calculation’s methodology.  

As estimated costs of each component have 
been  considered  the  ones  defined  in  the 
annual  budgets  approved  by  the  budget 
authority  and  included  in  the  annual  work 
programmes of the Space Programme. The 
benefit  of  the  Space  Programme,  as  well 
the cost-benefit analysis, are not calculated 
from  scratch  in  the  SWD.  They  are  taken 
from  previous  studies  which  the  study 
accompanying  this  evaluation  has  updated 
and harmonised to the extent possible. For 
clarity  and 
to  ensure  a  self-standing 
presentation, in the SWD have been added 
a  range  of  graphs  to  have  a  synthetic 
presentation of the cost- benefit analysis, as 
well  as  a  short  description  of 
the 
methodology used and its limitations. 

Methodology 

in 

Cost  and  benefit  calculation  has  been 
described 
the  previous  point  on 
Efficiency.  As  explained  in  the  SWD,  the 
Space Programme builds on the success of 
its  predecessor  programmes,  namely 
Copernicus,  Galileo,  EGNOS  and  the  SST 
components which continue with a number 
of new services.  In a nutshell, for services 
not  yet  operational  (e.g.  SWE,  NEO, 
GOVSATCOM) the high-level target must 
be  understood  as  the  availability  of  these 
service  by  the  end  of  this  MFF.  For 
Copernicus, Galileo and EGNOS there is a 
seamless  transition  from  one  MFF  to  the 
other  in  terms  of  performance,  the  high-
level  target  must  be  understood  as  the 
continuity of the level of data and services. 
In  fact,  there  is  a  clear  limitation  in  the 

98 

 
timeframe of the evaluation: 

It  is  not  possible  to  count  benefits  only 
from the period 2021-2023 for Copernicus, 
Galileo  and  EGNOS.  They  have  started  to 
provide  benefits  long  before  2021  and  at 
the  same  time  rely  on  high  infrastructure 
investments  which  started  more  than  10 
the 
ago.  Between  2021-2023 
years 
infrastructure  investments  were  minimal 
since  constellations  were  mature  and  the 
give 
ratios  with 
disproportionate  results.  Also,  the  benefits 
time-frame is not identical for Copernicus, 
Galileo  and  EGNOS  since  they  rely  on 
different 
stations  with 
completely different life-times and they’ve 
started at different time in the past. 

benefits  would 

satellites  or 

The  benefits  of  Copernicus  with  models 
and calculations are in Annex II.B.a of the 
SWD.  

The  benefits  of  Galileo  with  models  and 
calculations  are  in  Annex  II.B.b  of  the 
SWD.  

For SSA and GOVSATCOM there are cost 
incurred in the period 2021-2023, however 
there  are  noy  yet  benefits  to  put  into  the 
matrix 
are  yet 
operational.  

since  no 

services 

The  benefits  of  SST  with  models  and 
calculations  are  in  Annex  II.B.c  of  the 
SWD. 

The  benefits  of  SWE  with  models  and 
calculations  are  in  Annex  II.B.d  of  the 
SWD. 

The  benefits  of  NEO  with  models  and 
calculations  are  in  Annex  II.B.e  of  the 
SWD. 

The  benefits  of  GOVSATCOM  with 

99 

 
(4) The report does not sufficiently analyse 
the impact of the programme’s components 
on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  space 
industry  ecosystem  and  connected  sectors. 
and 
The 
participation 
are 
underdeveloped. 

competitiveness 
dimensions 

SME 

(5) The analysis should be more explicit on 
the  potential  for  simplification  of  the 
programme,  reduction  of  administrative 
costs  and  burdens,  including  for  SMEs,  in 
particular 
procurement 
procedures  which  are  acknowledged  as 
sometimes burdensome. 

regards 

as 

models  and  calculations  are  in  Annex 
II.B.e  of  the  SWD  (they  are  limited  to  the 
transportation  sector  since,  there  was  no 
public data available for other sectors). 
Competitiveness  of 
industry ecosystem and SME 

the  EU 

space 

in 

on 

focusing 

particular 

As regards the Space Programme’s support 
to  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  space 
sector,  the  SWD  already  includes  the 
evaluation of the CASSINI initiative which 
the 
is 
competitiveness  of  SMEs.  The  impact  on 
the competitiveness of the EU economy in 
general  and  on  SMEs  specifically  is  in 
section  4.1.1.F.  The  impact  on  indirect 
beneficiaries 
is 
the 
potentially  unlimited  as  described  before. 
Examples  can  be  found  in  the  sections  on 
coherence and relevance, and in Annex VI.   

programme 

of 

(6) The  report  should  put  more  emphasis 
on  evaluating  how  the  programme  affects 
the competitiveness  of the European space 
industry  eco-system,  related  industries  and 
sectors  as  well  as  those  who  benefit  from 
the  programme  in  a  more  indirect  way. 
Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  the 
impact  on  SMEs,  including  ease  of  their 
participation,  programme  relevance  and 
ultimately SME competitiveness. 

(5) The  report  does  not  present  clear  and 
operational conclusions and lessons learned 
to  inform  on  future  actions,  based  on  the 

Simplification 

and 

in  orbit 

It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  Programme  as 
such does not impose measures which have 
to be respected by natural or legal persons. 
The  objective  of  the  Regulation  is  to 
continue  funding  from  the  EU  budget 
critical  EU  Space  infrastructure  (ground 
infrastructure 
satellite 
constellations),  that  are  EU  owned  and 
deliver  services  continuity  for  the  EU 
Space  flagships  which  produce  data  and 
services  as  a  public  good.  To  reduce  the 
reporting  obligations,  the  list  of  KPIs 
included  in  the  Annex  of  the  Regulation 
could  be revised and a suggestion is  made 
in  the  SWD  to  that  effect.  Concerning  the 
procurement procedures, the Section 6.1 on 
“Conclusions  and  lessons  learnt”  has  been 
for 
redrafted 
simplification. 
A  subsection  on  “Lessons  Learnt” 
in 
section  6  has  been  added.  This  notably 
addresses  areas  where  improvements  can 

the  potential 

to  show 

100 

 
analysis. 

(6)  The  assessment  of  the  pricing  policy 
should  explain  how  international  outlook 
and 
technological  advancements  were 
taken  into  consideration,  including  in  the 
conclusions. 

the  existing 

be  made  within 
legal 
framework,  including  the  possibility  of 
reviewing  the  list  of  KPIs  included  in  the 
Annex of the Regulation,  simplification of 
procurement  processes  or  duration  of  the 
evaluation. 
This  has  been  addressed 
4.3.A 
section 
(Copernicus), 
4.3.D 
(GOVSATCOM)  and 
(Conclusions). 

in  redrafted 
4.3.C 
4.3.E 
in  Section  6.1 

(Galileo), 

(SSA), 

against 

criteria. 

evaluation 

issues  affecting 

(7) The  report  should  present  conclusions, 
based  on  the  preceding  analysis,  of  the 
all 
functioning 
programme’s 
mandatory 
The 
conclusions should reflect the analysis in a 
more balanced way.  
The lessons learned should be presented as 
a  separate  section,  which  should  include 
the  programme’s 
any 
performance  and  ways  to  address  them 
with  a  view  to  inform  further  policy 
developments.  
The 
the 
report  should  also  discuss 
recommendations  from  earlier  evaluations 
and  ECA  reports  of  the  programme’s 
components and assess the extent to which 
they  have  been  addressed  or  difficulties 
persist. 
(8) The  synopsis  report  on  stakeholder 
views  should  be  more  comprehensively 
presented,  and  the  report  should  explain 
how the views of the different stakeholder 
groups are reflected in the analysis. 

Section  6.1  on  “Conclusions  and  lessons 
learnt”  has  been  redrafted  to  show  the 
analysis. 

Lessons  learnt  have  been  added  in  a  new 
separate section (6.2). 

Sub-section  3.2  of  the  SWD  explains  how 
previous ECA recommendations have been 
addressed.  

from 

the  different 
Concrete  elements 
stakeholders’  consultations  and  input  have 
been  added  in  the  SWD  in  different 
sections,  while  the  Annex  V  of  the  SWD 
has been enriched with more details. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

In accordance with the Better Regulation toolbox, the assessment of the performance of 
the implementation of tasks, objectives, mandates, and policies was be done based on the 
evaluation  of  five  main  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU 
added value. 

A.   Effectiveness 

For  Effectiveness  the  objectives  of  the  Programme  are  the  one  of  the  Regulation 
measured in the Programme Performance Statement. To perform an accurate comparison 
and assessment of the outcomes versus the expectations, the performance of the entrusted 
entities  or  the  implementation  of  new  activities  where  the  Programme  Performance 
Statement is not providing any data, are measured based on KPIs pre-defined in between 
2020  and  2021  in  Contribution  Agreements  or  Work  Programmes.  The  figure  below 
shows the key KPIs used85. 

Component 
Copernicus 

KPIs 

Source 

-  Number of users 
-  Number of activations requested or 

Regulation 
Regulation 

served 

-  User satisfaction 
-  % Reliability, availability, and 

Regulation 
Regulation 

continuity 

-  Number of new information products 

Regulation 

delivered 

-  Amount of data generated  
-  Total # of satellites 
-  Navigation service performance 
-  Timely achievement of service 

milestones 

Regulation 
Regulation 
Regulation 
Contribution Agreement 

-  Timely delivery of reports 
-  GSC86 portal statistics 
-  Share of market 
-  # of airports with EGNOS APV-I & 

Contribution Agreement 
Contribution Agreement 
Regulation 
Regulation 

LPV-200 procedures (for an 
explanation of acronyms see link 
below)87 

Galileo 

EGNOS 

85 For more detailed information, see supporting Study, section 3. 

86 GSC is the Service Centre which provides a single interface for the Galileo OS and Commercial Service 

(CS) user communities and offers specific added-value services. 

87 Press Release: EGNOS LPV-200 Enables Safer Aircraft Landings 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  APV-I & LPV-200 availability 
-  APV-I * LPV-200 & NPA EGNOS 

Regulation 
Regulation 

SOL coverage area over EU-
MS+NO+CH (+IS*) land masses 

SSA 

-  Number of users 
-  Availability of services 

GOVSATCOM  -  Number of users 

-  Availability of services 
-  Contracts signed schedule 
-  Contracts commitment ceiling 
-  Research & Development contracts cost 

accrued 

Regulation 
Regulation 
Regulation 
Regulation 
Contribution Agreement 
Contribution Agreement 
Contribution Agreement 

-  Milestone achievement chart 

Contribution Agreement 

a.  Galileo Effectiveness 

In order to verify the effectiveness, the evaluation matrix described in Annex III has been 
applied to EUSPA. EUSPA is the entity directly reporting to the Commission for Galileo. 
While  ESA  has  several  tasks,  these  tasks  are  subdelegated  to  ESA  by  EUSPA  and  are 
thus included. The entrusted tasks have been split by the Contribution agreement in the 
main following categories: 

1.  Ensure Galileo Service Provision. 

2.  Ensure Security of the Galileo Programme. 

3.  Roll out new services or features anticipated in the space programme regulation. 

4.  Ensure development and deployment of Galileo infrastructure evolutions. 

5.  Support Commission international activities. 

Each category splits in several sub-categories, the details are available in Annex III. 

The specific outcome of each activity was determined based on the status, timeline, and 
budget,  that  mapped  to  a  numerical  outcome  on  a  scale  of  1-6.  The  exhaustive 
presentation  is  detailed  in  the  supporting  study  (Section  3.2.3),  the  summary  of  the 
findings is as follows: 

103 

 
 
 
 
# 

1 

2 

3 

4 

KPI 

Target 

Outcome  
(Q4 2022) 

Notes 

Linked to launch 
availability as 
mentioned above 

The low value is due 
to several reasons: 

GSAT104 is 
commissioned but 
not fully 
operational. There 
are ongoing 
discussions for 
decommissioning  

During the upgrade 
to ASW3.1, one 
satellite was out for 
upgrade every 
fortnight with each 
update taking one 
week. 

Additional issues 
like clock jumps, 
failures, and ground 
segment issues. 
Data only for OS 

No data for PRS in 
2022 

SB2.0 delayed due 
to change in SAB 
conditions and ESA 
development 
activities. 

See Intervention 4.2 

Total # of satellites 
(ratio of satellite 
successfully 
launched vs planned) 
Total # of fully 
operational satellites  
(ratio of fully 
operational satellites 
vs commissioned 
satellites) 

100% 

93% 

100% 

Sep – 87.6% 

Oct – 86.0% 

Nov 85.0% 

Navigation Service 
Performance  
(as per MPL in 
SDDs for all 
declared services) 
Timely achievement 
of Service milestones 
vs. FOC Service 
roadmap non-risk 
adjusted and risk 
adjusted objectives 
(covers G1G and 
G2G) – SB2.0 S-
DQR4 Jul 2022, 
SB2.1 S-DQR5 

100% 

Sep - 100% 

Oct – 100% 

Nov – 100% 

SIP: Jul 2022 
Working 
schedule:  

SB2.0 S-DQR4 
Step1 19/12/22  

SB2.0 S-DQR4 
Step2 31/03/23 

Working 
schedule: 
29/03/24 

As close as 
possible from 
the non-risk 
adjusted 
schedule 

104 

 
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Timely achievement 
of Infrastructure 
milestones vs. FOC 
Service roadmap 
non-risk adjusted and 
risk adjusted 
objectives (covers 
G1G and G2G1) 
Timely achievement 
of accreditation 
milestones vs FOC 
Service roadmap 
non-risk adjusted, 
and risk adjusted 
(covers G1G and 
G2G1) (M4B & M5 
delay) 
Timely achievement 
of PRS uptake and 
technological 
roadmap versus 
approved PRS 
uptake and 
technological 
roadmap 
Timely delivery of 
GSMC Security 
Monthly Report 
 (delay) 
Timely GSMC 
reaction to incident 
reported 
 (delay vs. nominal 
value for 95% of 
cases) 
Mean time between 
CAT-1 service 
incidents 
 (avg. time between 2 
CAT-1 consecutive 
incidents) 
Timely completion 
of preliminary 
analysis of security 

As close as 
possible from 
the non-risk 
adjusted 
schedule 

Relative to non-
risk adjusted, 
FOC is delayed, 
SB2.0 is delayed, 
G2G is delayed 

See intervention 4.1, 
4.2, 4.3. 

As close as 
possible from 
the non-risk 
adjusted 
schedule 

3 months at least  Linked to 

intervention 2 and 
caused by the delay 
in SB2.0 

Not a metric that is 
tracked publicly, so 
not available. 

NA 

As close as 
possible from 
the non-risk 
adjusted 
schedule 

0 days 

OK 

0 day 

OK 

As long as 
possible 

NA 

There have not been 
two CAT-1 
incidents yet. 

0 day 

OK 

105 

 
  
  
  
incident by GSMC 
 (delay vs. nominal 
value for 95% of 
cases) 
Mean time to 
mitigate CAT-1 
service incidents 
 (time between 
incident observation 
and recovery) 
Timely delivery of 
GRC Monthly 
Performance Reports 
 (delay vs nominal 
delivery date) 
GSC Portal statistics 
 (Sessions | page 
views | registered 
users | subscribed 
users to NAGU 
notifications | user 
requests) 

GSC web portal 
availability 
 (monthly 
availability) 
GSC Reaction Time 
for NAGU 
 (avg. reaction time 
in days) 
GSC Reaction Time 
for User queries 
 (avg time to answer 
user queries that do 
not require 
escalation) 
Timely delivery of 
Quarterly 
Performance Reports 
 (delay vs nominal 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

< a few hours  OK 

0 day 

OK 

For 
information 

> 97% 

Sessions – 16063 

Page Views – 
40532 

Registered Users 
– 143 

Subscribed Users 
– 25 

User Requests - 
47 
100% 

As per SSD 

0.37 days 

< 3 days 

1.28 days 

0 day 

One quarterly 
report delayed by 
1 day 

No impact of this 
delay 

106 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
19 

delivery date) 

Market (2027) 
 (ratio of Galileo 
EGNOS enabled 
receivers to total 
receivers) 

EGNOS 65% 

EGNOS 62% 

Target is for 2027. 

Galileo 70% 

Galileo 65% 

Therefore,  the  evaluation  concludes  that,  the  Galileo  programme  has  achieved  its  key 
objectives  set  out  for  the  evaluation  period,  providing  long-term,  state-of-the-art  and 
secure positioning, navigation and timing services whilst ensuring service continuity and 
robustness. 

b.  EGNOS Effectiveness 

In order to verify the effectiveness, the evaluation matrix presented in Annex III has been 
applied  to  EUSPA.  EUSPA  is  the  entity  directly  reporting  to  the  Commission  for 
EGNOS. While ESA has several tasks, these tasks are subdelegated to ESA by EUSPA 
and are thus included. The entrusted tasks have been split by the Contribution agreement 
in the main following categories: 

•  Ensure EGNOS Service Provision. 
•  Ensure Security of the EGNOS Programme. 
•  Develop new EGNOS services enabling new application. 
•  Ensure EGNOS evolution. 
•  Support Commission International Activities. 

Each category splits in several sub-categories, the details are available in Annex III. 

According  to  the  matrix  in  section  4.1,  the  specific  outcome  of  each  activity  was 
determined  based  on  the  status,  timeline,  and  budget,  that  mapped  to  a  numerical 
outcome on a scale of 1-6. The exhaustive presentation is detailed in the supporting study 
(Section 3.2.3), the summary of the findings is as follows: 

107 

 
 
 
 
# 

KPI 

Target 

1A  # of airports with 

For Info 

Outcome  
Q4 2022 
286 

Notes 

Continual increase in 2022 

EGNOS APV-I 
procedures 
1B  # of airports with 
EGNOS LPV-200 
procedures 
2A  # of airports with 

EGNOS procedures 
implementing APV-I 
service level and with 
APV-I available 
2B  # of airports with 

EGNOS procedures 
implementing LPV-200 
service level and with 
LPV-200 available 

For Info 

204 

Continual increase in 2022 

For Info 

284 

Continual increase in 2022 

For Info 

203 

Continual increase in 2022 

NA  # of EGNOS 

For Info 

837 

Continual increase in 2022 

procedures 

NA  # of EGNOS 

For Info 

833 

Continual increase in 2022 

Procedures with an 
availability ≥ 99% 
3A  EGNOS APV-I service 

availability % 

>99% 

98.24% 

3B  EGNOS LPV-200 

>99% 

99.5% 

Target not met in Q4 due to 
underperformance in some 
peripheral areas caused by 
higher solar and 
ionospheric activity 
Target met every quarter 

service availability % 
4A  APV-I EGNOS SOL 

100% 

coverage area over EU-
MS+NO+CH (+IS*) 
land masses 

100% 

4B  LPV-200 EGNOS SOL 
coverage area over EU-
MS+NO+CH (+IS*) 
land masses 
4C  NPA EGNOS SOL 
coverage over EU-
MS+NO+CH (+IS*) 
Flight Information 
Regions 
EDAS users monitoring  For Info 

100% 

5 

Caused by a design 
limitation of V2, 
performance should be 
increased by V3 
Caused by a design 
limitation of V2, 
performance should be 
increased by V3 

97.03% (incl. 
IS) 

89.73% (incl. 
IS) 

100% (incl. 
IS) 

445 (EU)  

EU increasing over 2022, 

108 

 
  
6A  APV-I SoL availability 

100% 

service area vs SDD 

1 (non EU) 
 70 (actual) 
92.7% 

6B  LPV-200 SoL 

100% 

90.41% 

availability service area 
vs SDD 

6C  NPA SoL availability 

100% 

100% 

service area vs SDD 

others decreasing over 
2022 
Underperformance in some 
peripherical areas due to 
solar and ionospheric 
activity higher than 
expected and GPS 
maintenance impacts on 
performance 
Same as above 

7A  APV-I SoL continuity 

100% 

95.75% 

Same as above 

service area vs SDD 

7B  LPV-200 SoL 

100% 

82.08% 

Same as above 

continuity service area 
vs SDD 

8 

7C  NPA SoL continuity 
service area vs SDD 
OS performance and 
availability  
(RIMS sites above 99% 
availability) 
EDAS performance and 
availability 

9 

100% 

99.63% 

Same as above 

100%  

88.88% 

Same as above 

100% 

99.99% 

Considered compliant 

10  EU user satisfaction 

80% 

with respect to EGNOS 
services 

11  Share of EGNOS 

For Info 

85.6%  
(Q3 value) 

Q4 value not available yet 

(1) 62% 
(2) 62% 

65% is a proposed target 
for 2027 

enabled receivers in the 
worldwide (1) and the 
EU (2) GNSS / SBAS 
receiver market 
12  EGNOS Service 

helpdesk Reaction Time 
13  Timely achievement of 
Service milestones vs. 
objectives 
(a) Delay per service 
milestone  
(b) Average delay 
versus objective) (As 

< 3 day 

2.95 day 

(a) < 3m 
(b) 0m 

(a) 16m 
(EDAS) 
(b) 3.7m 

Due to a change in priority 
with no impact on users. 

109 

 
  
  
per EGNOS objective 3 
service milestones) 
14  Timely achievement of 

EGNOS V2 
developments (e.g. 
V242B and 243) 
qualification milestones 
vs. objectives 
(a) Delay per System 
milestone  
(b) Average delay) (As 
per EGNOS objective 4 
milestones related to 
EV2 developments) 

15  Timely achievement of 

EGNOS V3 
development and Phase 
B studies milestones vs. 
objectives 
(a) Delay per System 
milestone  
(b) average delay) (As 
per EGNOS objective 4 
milestones related to 
EV3 development and 
Phase B studies) 
16  Timely achievement of 
accreditation milestones 
(Delay per accreditation 
milestone versus 
approved Exploitation 
Roadmap) (As per 
objectives 2) 
17  Mean time between 

important/severe/critical 
service incidents 
18  Mean time to mitigate 

important/severe/critical 
service incidents 

(a) < 3m 
(b) 0m 

(a) target 
achieved for 
all milestones 
(b) positive 
margin in 
average 

(a) < 3m 
(b) 0m 

< 1 m 

a) Not 
achieved for 
V3.1 (7m 
delay), 
positive 
margin for 
V3.2 
b) average 
delay = 1m 

Data 
unavailable 
(milestones 
TBD EEXP 
2023) 

For info 

14 days 

< few 
hours 

1 day 

110 

Caused by industrial delays 

It has been agreed with EC 
that the time to mitigate a 
service incident for SOL 
service will be reported 
with a granularity of 1 day. 
Given that the criteria to 
raise the service incident is 
based on a degraded 

 
  
 
  
  
coverage computed over 24 
hours, the minimum 
recovery time is 1 day. 

For info 

19  EGNOS Portal statistics 
(Sessions (1), Page 
views (2), Registered 
users (3), Subscribed 
users to notifications 
(4), User requests (5)) 

20  EGNOS web portal 

>97% 

availability (Monthly 
availability) 

c.  Copernicus Effectiveness 

(1) 26013, 
(2) 33627, 
(3) 4266, 
(4) 2929 
(new doc)/ 
2070 (perfo 
alerts), 
(5) 11 
99.33% 

In order to verify the effectiveness, the evaluation matrix presented in Annex III has been 
applied to following entities, each implementing a part of the Copernicus component: 

•  ESA 
•  EUMETSAT 
•  EEA 
•  MOI 
•  ECMWF 
•  EMSA 
•  FRONTEX 
•  EUSPA 

ESA  was  in  charge  of  developing  and  operating  the  space  component,  procuring 
launches, managing Sentinels and CCM data, and ensuring continuous and available data 
access  for  all  Sentinel  data.  ESA  successfully  carried  out  most  of  the  entrusted  tasks 
without delays, in particular in the intervention areas of data access and distribution and 
user uptake. Within intervention area related to data acquisition, one activity was delayed 
mostly  due  to  the  external  factors,  as  impacted  by  the  loss  of  Sentinel-1B  and  the 
unavailability  of  VEGA-C  to  launch  Sentinel-1C.  This  has  not  led  to  any  critical 
consequences as Sentinel-1A is still operational, however the data that is unavailable due 
to the loss of Sentinel-1B cannot be fully covered.  

EUSPA has been entrusted the implementation of activities related to the user uptake of 
data, market development, and capacity building, extension of the European GNSS User 
Consultation Platform to Other Copernicus users, and analysis of trends in user needs and 
requirements. While most of the tasks were implemented without delay, the development 
of Copernicus demonstrators was delayed due to a high number of proposals, leading to 
the  overall 
project  kick-off  delays.  However, 

these  delays  will  not 

impact 

111 

 
  
 
implementation, as the budget will not be exceeded and has provided additional time for 
networking and awareness raising before the launch of the second call by EUSPA. 

The entrusted tasks have been split by the Contribution agreements in the main following 
categories: 

Entity 
Intervention Group 
ESA 
Objective 1: Data acquisition 
ESA 
Objective 3: Data access and distribution 
ESA 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 
EUMETSAT 
Objective 1: Data acquisition 
EUMETSAT 
Objective 3: Data access and distribution 
EUMETSAT 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 
EEA 
Objective 1: Data acquisition 
EEA 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
EEA 
Objective 3: Data access and distribution 
EEA 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 
MOI 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
Objective 3: Data access and distribution 
MOI 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building  MOI 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
Objective 3: Data access and distribution 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 
Objective 2: Services Provision 
Objective 4: User uptake, market development and capacity building 

ECMWF 
ECMWF 
ECMWF 
ECMWF 
EMSA 
EMSA 
FRONTEX 
EUSPA 

Each of the above split into a larger number of sub-categories (sometimes more than 100 
each), the exhaustive list is presented in the supporting study, Section 3.1.3. 

According  to  the  matrix  in  Annex  III,  the  specific  outcome  of  each  activity  was 
determined  based  on  the  status,  timeline,  and  budget,  that  mapped  to  a  numerical 
outcome  on  a  scale  of  1-6.  The  exhaustive  presentation  is  detailed  in  the  supporting 
study, Section 3.1.3, the summary of the findings is as follows: 

112 

 
 
 
Indicator of number of Copernicus users 
KPI  
Service 
# users 
Transversal 

Outcome 
Number of users for Copernicus Services, 
Scientific/Other Access, National Collaborative Data 
Access, and International Agreements are higher than 
the targeted number of users 
Total number of registered users and active users 
increasing over time 
Total number of registered users and active users 
growing over time 
Total number of registered users and active users 
growing over time 
Steady number of users over time 
Total number of users growing over time 

CLMS 

# users 

CAMS 

# users 

C3S 

Transversal 
CMEMS 

# users 

# users 
# users 

Indicator of user satisfaction within Copernicus 
Service 
Transversal  
Transversal 

Outcome 
High user satisfaction of >85% 
High user satisfaction of >85% 

KPI  
EU user satisfaction 
Sentinel data user 
satisfaction 
% response rate 
EU user satisfaction 
EU user satisfaction 
EU user satisfaction 

CLMS 
CAMS 
C3S 
CMEMS 

% response rate targets achieved 
High user satisfaction of >85% 
High user satisfaction >85% 
High user satisfaction >85% 

Indicator of reliability, availability or continuity of Copernicus 
Service 
Transversal 

KPI  
End-to-end Absolute 
Availability of Copernicus 
Data Access Service 

Outcome 
Sentinel-3 & Sentinel-6 % availability 
were higher than the targets.  
Jason-3 % availability, however 
negligible, was slightly lower than the 
target, due to interruption of service 
during an orbit manoeuvre 
Overall % availability is above targets 
except S3 Land L2 for Africa STC and 
Suomi NPP Global Service. Their 
availability is dependent on 
infrastructure and services not under 
the control of EUMETSAT 
Overall % availability is above targets 

Transversal 

End-to-end Absolute 
Availability of 3rd party data 

Transversal 

End-to-end Absolute 
Availability of Services 
implemented in coordination 

113 

 
 
 
Transversal 

with CNES/CLS 
Continuity of service 

CLMS 

Service availability 

CAMS/C3S 
CAMS 

CAMS 

C3S 

CMEMS 

CMEMS 

CMEMS 

Uptime 
Reliability (% of Copernicus 
Information and Data 
products generated that are 
non-conformant) 
Availability (% of time that 
Copernicus Information and 
Data products are 
accessible) 
Availability (% of time that 
Copernicus Information and 
Data products are 
accessible) 
Reliability in percentage of 
Copernicus Information and 
Data products 
Availability in percentage of 
time that Copernicus 
Information and Data 
products are accessible 
% Continuity of Copernicus 
Information and Data 
deliveries 

Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, Sentinel-5P % 
continuity is higher than the target 
% availability of services equivalent to 
targets 
% uptime consistent with standards set 
High % reliability 

High % availability 

High % availability 

High % reliability 

High % availability 

High % continuity 

Indicator of amount of data generated within Copernicus 
Service 
Transversal 

KPI  
Amount of data generated 
by the Sentinels 
Volume of Sentinel Data 
produced 

Transversal 

Outcome 
Nominal amount of data generated by 
Sentinels 
Volume of data produced daily for 
Sentinels 1/2/3 are above average 
targets.  
For Sentinel 5P, it is lower that the 
target since S-5P delivered data 
(L1b/L2) is compressed and this 
reduces the actual data volume 
Number of new datasets is higher than 
the target outcome 

Transversal 

Total number of available 
datasets from CCMs 

114 

 
 
 
On top of the above there are also indicators which show that Copernicus has performed 
well, even where a numbered target had not been set (because by definition there was no 
target  to  achieve):  new  products  have  been  released  to  users  (against  the  baseline  of 
2021) and the number of Emergency Service activations has increased over the years. 

d.  SSA Effectiveness 

As indicated in Section 4.1.1.D of the SWD, the table below shows the KPIs completion 
for SSA. 

e.  GOVSATCOM Effectiveness 

As indicated in Section 4.1.1.E of the SWD, the table below shows the KPIs completion 
for GOVSATCOM as reported by ESA. 

115 

 
 
 
 
Status 

Ongoing 

On time/ 
Delayed 

On time 

Ongoing 

On time 

Closed 

On time 

Closed 

On time 

Ongoing 

On time 

Year 

Activities 

2021-2027 

2021-2027 

2021-2027 

2021-2027 

Test-beds in 
support to 
demonstration 
activities to be 
deployed in a 
consistent way 
with the need to 
conduct a first 
set of 
demonstrations 
in 2022, and 
pursue them 
over the 2022-
2024 timeframe. 

Ensure the appropriate and timely 
preparation and design of any 
future GOVSATCOM space 
segment and its related ground 
segment through coordination and 
implementation of a set of system 
studies and up-stream R & D of key 
technologies, products and sub-
systems 
Implement the development and 
deployment of end-to-end 
demonstrators of future 
GOVSATCOM space segment and 
related ground segment 
Contribute to assess the need for an 
additional GOVSATCOM space 
component and some innovative 
system features and identify 
relevant design options for 
GOVSATCOM evolutions 
responding to this need. 
Contribution to the preparation of 
the Horizon Europe Work 
Programme(s) to be prepared and 
adopted by the Commission when 
relevant to the GOVSATCOM 
activities. 
Execution of demonstrations to 
prepare the conditions for adoption 
of the GovSatCom services 
(GovSatCom annex 2022) / 
Development and deployment of 
end-to-end demonstrations of future 
GovSatCom space segment and 
related ground segment (Annex) 
Support to the Commission and 
EUSPA for the execution of end-to-
end demonstrations involving users 
in specific environmental contexts, 
with the objective of showing the 
value of innovative system features 
on which GOVSATCOM can 

116 

 
From 2021 

2021-2027 

Outcome of 
analysis on the 
need for an 
additional space 
segment: inputs 
for review and 
decision by EU 
Member States 
to be made 
available to the 
Commission by 
latest Q2 2024 
2021-2027 

2021-2027 

leverage. 
Provision of technical input to the 
Commission for the relevant 
Commission Programme 
Committee configurations 
(including those stemming from the 
Horizon Europe programme or the 
EU space programme), sub-groups 
or experts groups, task forces, 
workshops, or stakeholder 
consultations organised by the 
Commission in relation to the 
GOVSATCOM entrusted tasks 
ESA may lead and coordinate the 
elaboration and update of the 
GOVSATCOM Upstream R&D 
roadmap, in particular through 
chairing the work of a group of 
national space agencies and 
institute of technologies. 
ESA will contribute to assess the 
need (by mid-2024) for additional 
GOVSATCOM space and ground 
infrastructures through dedicated 
analyses and works conducted 
internally and/or through industrial 
contracts.  

Participation of ESA as full 
member in the integrated project 
teams set-up for the implementation 
of studies launched by the 
Commission towards the European 
space-based secure connectivity 
initiative, especially as focal point 
for space segment and ground 
segment 
Identification and assessment of 
relevant options for EuroQCI space 
segment and related ground 

117 

Ongoing (continuous 
process) 

On time 

Not started because 
no request received 

On time 

Closed (see above) 

On time 

Ongoing (continuous 
process) 

On time 

Ongoing 

On time 

 
segment, in accordance with ESA 
role in EuroQCI 

Upon the request of the 
Commission, support the 
Commission in the distribution of 
EUCI related to GOVSATCOM. 
Manage the classified network for 
the provision of documentation 
associated to the GOVSATCOM 
component of the Programme to 
EU Member States, EUSPA and, 
upon instruction from Commission, 
also to industry. 

From 2021  

From 2021 

B.  Efficiency 

Not started because 
no request received 

On time 

Not started because 
no request received 

On time 

The  Programme  has  different  benefits  and  impacts  that  can  be  generated  from  each 
driver,  they  are  not  mutually  exclusive  and  can  always  be  categorized  according  to  the 
following classification: 

This classification is widely used for all types of research activities, space programmes 
and  policies.  The  definition  of  the  impacts  and  their  association  with  each  of  the  four 
categories is strongly dependent on the kind of initiatives/interventions conducted, their 
status (e.g., whether a project or a program is still at feasibility study level, design level, 
development, or operations), and on the involved stakeholders. 

Particularly  for  the  period  of  this  assessment  it  was  considered  relevant  to  look  at  the 
following impacts: 

118 

Strategic Impacts Economic Impacts Societal ImpactsEnvironmental Impact Development of programs Exploitation of program outputs Impact driversImpact categories 
 
To  evaluate  the  efficiency  of  the  Programme  a  costs  assessment  was  performed 
(assessment  of  resource  and  inputs)  and  compared  to  the  benefits  previously  evaluated 
(under effectiveness) in a cost-benefits assessment output. 

a.  Benefits assessment of Copernicus 

It is not possible to count benefits only from the period 2021-2023 for Copernicus. They 
have  started  to  provide  benefits  long  before  2021  and  at  the  same  time  rely  on  high 
infrastructure investments which started more than 10 years ago. Between 2021-2023 the 
infrastructure investments were minimal since constellations were mature and the ratios 
with  benefits  would  give  disproportionate  results.  Also,  the  benefits  time-frame  is  not 
identical with Galileo and EGNOS since they rely on different satellites or stations with 
completely different life-times and they’ve started at different times in the past. 

The  first  level  of  benefits  includes  the  direct  transactional  impacts  resulting  from  the 
investment  and  spending  to  develop  the  infrastructure.  The  second  level  of  impacts 
includes the wider socio-economic benefits resulting from the utilization and exploitation 
of the infrastructure developed, as demonstrated in the figure below: 

119 

 
 
GDP  impact  assessment  is  performed  to  measure  transactional  impacts  which  are 
immediate impacts resulting from engaging a simple transaction. Here it is the immediate 
economic  impact  resulting  from  public  funding  into  Copernicus  by  giving  money  to 
several stakeholders (private companies, academic entities...etc.) to contribute to certain 
developments. The impact of this money injected into the economy through Copernicus, 
is measured by assessing the overall impact on European GDP. 

The objective of the GDP  impact  assessment is to assess the impact of spending  in  the 
space  sector  on  the  European  economy,  with  2  types:  Gross  Value  Added  (GVA)  and 
Employment. 

The three types of GDP impact can be described as follow: 

• 

•  Direct GDP Impact: The GDP impact of direct spending into the space industry, 
which  typically  initiated  in  upstream  manufacturing,  is  the  economic  activity 
stimulated  in  the  space  industry  itself;  it  represents  the  Gross  Value  Added 
(GVA) realised in the industrial sector receiving the initial spending.  
Indirect  GDP  Impact: The indirect impact represents the economic activity (i.e., 
GVA) supported by the spending made in the space industry. To fulfil a contract, 
space  companies  need  to  procure  equipment  (i.e.,  electronic  equipment, 
computers,  etc.)  and/or  material  (i.e.,  raw  metal,  plastic)  from  non-space 
industrial sectors. These secondary or “2nd round” impacts would not occur if the 
upstream  space  industry  operations  had  not  required  the  support  to  fulfil  their 
orders.  
Induced GDP Impact: The induced impact represents the economic activity (i.e., 
GVA) supported by those people directly (i.e., jobs supported by space suppliers) 
or indirectly employed (i.e., jobs supported by non-space suppliers) thanks to the 
initial  injection  of  spending  into  the  economy.  Induced  impact  illustrates  the 
economic  impact  of  these  people  when  they  spend  their  incomes  on  goods  and 
services  in  the  wider  European  economy.  This  induced  spending  supports  the 
industries  that  supply  these  non-space  purchases,  and  includes  housing,  retail 
outlets, companies producing consumer goods and a variety of service industries. 

• 

The  space  supply  chain  has  been  applied  a  modelling  of  the  in  order  to  provide  the 
spending inputs associated to non-space industrial sectors. The two steps that consisted 
of the methodology used are: 

•  First  step  –  Modelling  of  the  space  activities:  This  step  takes  as  input  the 
institutional  spending  in  space,  and  produces  as  output  the  space  Gross  Value 

120 

CopernicusBenefitsDirect transactionalimpacts due to initial spendingExploitation and utilizationbenefitsWidersocietal, environmentaland economicbenefitsto end usersGDP impact and supportedemployment 
 
Added  (equal  to  labour  plus  profit)  based  on  statistical  information  and  models 
available  on  the  Space  sector,  and  the  spending  into  a  number  of  non-space 
industrial  sectors  that  are  modelled  in  the  Input-Output  (IO)  matrix  “E3ME 
model” designed by Cambridge Economics88. 

•  Second step – Feeding the E3ME model with spending: The spending into non-
space industrial  sector is  fed into the  IO model,  producing  as  output the  overall 
GDP impact (total GVA), employment impact and government revenues. 

The  Gross  Value  Added  is  a  measure  of  the  value  created  in  the  economy  due  to  the 
public  spending.  The  main  objective  of  this  indicator  is  to  measure  the  impact  that  the 
initial  public  spending  had  on  creating  value  in  the  space  sector  and  in  the  wider 
European economy. 

When this  approach and the E3ME model was utilized, and the GVA  and  employment 
impacts were deduced, multipliers were calculated.  

One of these multipliers is the type 2 return multiplier and it is calculated according to 
the following formula:  

𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 2 𝑅𝐸𝑇𝑈𝑅𝑁 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 =  

𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑𝐺𝑉𝐴
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔

and it was found to be 1.4. 

Therefore,  assuming  the  Multiplier  is  a  constant,  and  provided  that  we  have  the  total 
spending on Copernicus, we are able to deduct the total GVA.  

The  total  Copernicus  spending  over  2014  –  2020  period  amounted  to  a  total  of  EUR 
4.145  billion,  additionally  the  new  MFF  2021  –  2027  had  EUR  5.073  billion  for 
Copernicus.  Therefore,  total  spending  of  2014  –  2027  is  expected  to  be  EUR  9.218 
billion (EU budget only, i.e. not accounting to the ESA allocated budget to Copernicus, 
notably the ground segment infrastructure).  

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑉𝐴 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 (2014 − 2027) 𝑥 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 2 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 

=EUR 9.218 billion x 1.4 

Therefore, according to this approach, the total GVA of Copernicus is expected to 
be EUR 12.9 billion. 

Furthermore, we can deduce the expected Direct GVA (i.e. the GVA in the Space sector) 
from a different type of multiplier which is the type 2 multiplier defined as follows: 

88 E3ME Model Manual 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 2 𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 =

𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑𝐺𝑉𝐴
𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴

which was found to be 2.39. 

Assuming a constant multiplier over time, and having obtained the updated expected total 
GVA, the new updated expected Direct GVA is assumed to be: 

𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝐺𝑉𝐴 =

𝐸𝑈𝑅 12.9 𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛
2.39

= 𝐸𝑈𝑅 5.40 𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛  

b.  Benefits assessment of Galileo 

The calculations build on the London Economics (2018) impact assessment of GNSS in 
Europe. This study is not public but was available to the Commission. We can report that 
EUR  1  invested  in  Galileo/EGNOS  upstream  generates  EUR  2.4  for  the  industry 
(dividends, salaries, etc). This can be used to identify the Gross Value Added (GVA) for 
the EU economy. 

EGNSS Total Spending (spending) (2014-2020) 

EGNSS Total Spending (commitment) (2021-2027) 

Total EGNSS Value (2014-2027) 

EUR 5.765 bn 

EUR 7.437 bn 

EUR 13.202 bn 

The total upstream impact can be calculated by following the formula: 

In this case, the upstream impact can be estimated based on the total contract value for 
Galileo and EGNOS. This results in a value of EUR 11 279.79 million in total GVA in 
current prices. 

The Market Benefits of GNSS can be summarised as below: 

GNSS Benefit (million EUR) (2017-35) (2023 prices) 
Internet of things 
Safety Critical and Liability Critical Transport 
Terrestrial Vehicles monitoring & Automation 
Drones 
Critical Infrastructure 
High Precision Professional Applications 
TOTAL 

122 

 55 424.14 
 2 508.25 
 49 274.90 
 809.11 
 1 254.12 
 26 174.76 
 135 445.28 

 
 
 
 
The Utility Benefits of GNSS can be summarised as below: 

Vertical 

Internet of things 

Safety Critical and Liability Critical Transport 

Terrestrial Vehicles monitoring & Automation 

Drones 

Critical Infrastructure 

High Precision Professional Applications 

TOTAL 

GNSS Benefit (million EUR) 
(2017-35) (2023 prices) 

 85 361.27 

 25 729.75 

 412 849.19 

 43 772.94 

 1 213.67 

 121 649.93 

 690 576.74 

GNSS is a public good, meaning that it is both non excludable and non-rivalrous. In the 
context of the evaluation, this means that it is difficult to attribute benefits to one single 
GNSS  system  (there  are  four  global  GNSS  systems:  GPS  vs  Galileo  vs  Beidou  vs 
Glonass), as the majority of benefits do not depend on a single system. 

Two different scenarios have been used to calculate the benefits of Galileo and EGNOS, 
as explained below. The scenarios are based on assumptions on how benefit is attributed 
to Galileo, as benefits cannot be split between all GNSS constellations. 

•  100% of benefit allocated to Galileo. Takes the assumption that all exploitation 
benefit  in  Europe  is  derived  from  Galileo.  Therefore,  this  benefit  is  combined 
with the EGNOS benefits. 

•  25% of benefit allocated to Galileo. Takes the assumption that all exploitation 
benefit in Europe is derived equally from each of the four GNSS. Therefore, this 
is divided by four, and the EGNOS benefits are added on top. 

Over the timeframe 2017 – 202789: 

Costs 

Benefit Scn. 1  Benefit Scn. 2  Benefit cost ratio 1  Benefit cost ratio 2 

26.7 

EUR 93.39 bn 

EUR 352.40 
bn 

EUR 
13.20 bn 
As  shown  in  the  table  above,  even  when  assuming  that  the  benefits  are  split  equally 
between  the  four  constellations,  the  benefits  massively  outweigh  the  costs.  This  is 
because of the extremely wide-reaching use cases of GNSS: Safety Critical and Liability 
Critical  Transport,  Terrestrial  Vehicles  monitoring  &  Automation,  Drones,  Critical 
Infrastructure,  High  Precision  Professional  Applications.  The  global  economy  is 
dependent  on  these.  In  fact,  the  costs  only  account  for  3.7%  of  the  total  value  of  the 

7.1 

89 This period corresponds to the deployment of the Galileo constellation (first generation). 

123 

 
 
benefits, meaning that the benefit cost ratio would be greater than one even if only 3.7% 
of the benefits of GNSS were allocated to Galileo and EGNOS. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c.  Benefits assessment of SST 

The benefits assessment of SSA builds on the 2018  impact assessment study of the EU 
SSA  initiative90.  The  relevant  quantitative  impacts  have  been  updated  thanks  to  more 
recent data (the number of satellites in orbit which is the main parameter  impacting the 
probability  of  collisions  -  this  was  updated  taking  into  account  the  presence  of  mega 
constellations). 

The most important economic impact expected to materialize from the SST service is the 
reduction in  collisions  between spacecrafts  and space debris. This  impact is  considered 
by  far  the  main  driver  for  SST  therefore  the  largest  focus  of  the  assessment  is  on  this 
benefit.  This  benefit  is  assessed  quantitively  by  analysing  the  different  costs  linked  to 
collisions  and  avoidance  manoeuvres,  and  then  evaluating  the  benefits  that  may  be 
enabled thanks to the SST component. 

Reduced  loss  of  revenues  is  the  main  commercial  driver  for  SST  as  it  represents  the 
largest impact. The first step of the assessment is based on the valuation of the costs of 
collisions  and  avoidance  manoeuvres  between  2020  and  2035  as  shown  in  the  figure 
below. The collisions can be either lethal or non-lethal, each case having a different cost 
due to replacement of the satellite or lost revenue for service interruption, and a different 
probability of happening. Avoidance manoeuvres also have a significant cost to take into 
account as each manoeuvre reduce the lifespan of the satellite. 

90 Assessment of the Possible EU Space Situational Awareness Initiative 

125 

 
 
 
Once all the costs are calculated, the next step is to evaluate how the SST component of 
can help in reducing these costs. This cost reduction is precisely the benefit of the SST 
component for this impact. To assess this benefit, three scenarios were considered which 
translate the efficiency of the SST component as shown in the figure below. 

Considering the impact description that has been developed above, impact of catastrophic 
collisions  with  electrically  propelled  and  chemically  propelled  satellites  in  Low  Earth 
Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) have been quantified.  

A catastrophic collision leads to two impacts:  

1.  Revenue  is  lost  from  the  interruption  in  services  during  the  time  in  which  a 

replacement satellite is built. 

2.  The  satellite  is  replaced  sooner  than  anticipated,  with  additional  investment 

required to maintain services up to the originally planned satellite lifetime. 

In  order  to  understand  the  baseline  costs  of  catastrophic  collisions  in  a  given  year,  the 
cost of a single event is multiplied by the probability of this event happening to an EU 
satellite and the number of EU satellites. 

Cost of a single event: catastrophic collision  

Lost  revenue  is  calculated  as  the  average  annual  revenue  of  a  satellite  (electric  or 
chemical, GEO or LEO) multiplied by the number of years of lost revenue. It is assumed 
that  if  a  satellite  is  destroyed,  a  replacement  will  be  commissioned  and  launched  into 
orbit after 2.5 years, so that 2.5 years of revenue are lost. The additional investment cost 
to  replace  the  satellite  is  estimated  as  the  annualised  cost  of  satellite  manufacture  and 
launch multiplied by the years of life lost by the satellite due to the collision, discounted 
based on the year using the social discount rate91 (4%). In all calculations, it is assumed 
that the catastrophic collision occurs at the midpoint of the lifespan of a satellite for those 
that  are  in  LEO  and  GEO.  The  table  below  outlines  the  assumptions  used  for  satellite 
lifespan and annualised costs and revenues. 

91 The social discount rate compares costs and benefits occurring in different time periods from the point of 
view of society. Such concept is taken from the European Commission Better Regulation "Toolbox". 

126 

 
 
 
Chemical propulsion 
LEO 
GEO 
7.5 
15 

Electric propulsion 
LEO 
GEO 
10 
20 

63.84 

25.01 

43.68 

25.01 

21.51 

13.33 

9.81 

6.00 

Lifespan (years) 
Average Annual 
revenue (million 
EUR) 
Annualised 
investment cost 
(million EUR) 

The table below shows the cost of a single catastrophic collision in present value terms.  

(million EUR) 
Cost of revenue 
interruption 
Cost of sooner 
replacement 
Total benefit per 
avoided lethal 
collision 

Chemical propulsion 
LEO 
GEO 

Electric propulsion 
LEO 
GEO 

155 

140 

295 

61 

46 

107 

126 

82 

208 

61 

27 

88 

Baseline cost: catastrophic collision probability and number of satellites 

The baseline  cost  is  driven by the probability of  satellite collision in  each year  and the 
number of Member States’ and EU satellites in orbit in each year. It takes into account 
the cost of replacing the satellite and the revenue lost while the new satellite is rebuilt. 
The probability of a collision varies between LEO and GEO, as the population of space 
debris is not evenly distributed among orbital  regions. Therefore, it is assumed that the 
probability of collisions is higher in LEO at an altitude of ~800 km, as this region has the 
highest concentration of space debris92. 

The probability of a collision occurring in an orbit evolves over time, as does the number 
of satellites in each orbit, and the mix of electric and chemical propelled satellites.  

Orbital regime 
LEO 
GEO 

2020 
0.000030 
0.00000061 

2035 
0.00033 
0.00000129 

92 Presentation on Space Traffic Management 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of EU satellites 

The number of EU satellites is expected to increase over time. In addition, the share of 
satellites  with  electric  versus  chemical  propulsion  is  expected  to  change  over  time. 
Satellites  with  different  types  of  propulsion  system  have  different  lifespans,  annual 
revenues, and costs, and therefore there is a different level of impact associated with their 
loss or damage. 

The table below shows the number of satellites in 202 and the assumed number in 2035: 

Orbit – Propulsion type 
GEO – chemical propelled 
LEO – chemical propelled  
GEO – electric propelled 
LEO – electric propelled 

2020 
74 
106 
3 
- 

Baseline impact of catastrophic collisions 

2035 
46 
158 
32 
- 

The baseline impact of catastrophic collisions is shown in the table below, in net present 
value  terms.  It  is  achieved  by  summing  the  annual  cost  of  catastrophic  collisions  to 
satellites over the period 2020-2035. This period is the most adequate to consider based 
on  the  technology  currently  used  to  derive  the  information  for  the  service:  radars, 
telescopes and ranging stations and their expected lifetime. The benefits timeframe is not 
identical with Copernicus, Galileo and EGNOS since they rely on different technologies 
and started operations at different times in the past. 

The  cost  for  each  year  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the  cost  of  a  single  collision,  the 
number of satellites in orbit, and the probability for a satellite to have a collision. 

 (million EUR) 
GEO – chemical propelled 
LEO – chemical propelled  
GEO – electric propelled 
LEO – electric propelled 
Total 

Net present value of impact between 2020 and 2035  
0.24 
28.93 
0.04 
- 
29.22 

d.  Benefits assessment of SWE  

This section aims at presenting the main sectors that would be affected in case of a space 
weather  event.  As  previously  defined,  there  are  three  types  of  events  that  could  cause 
damages:  ionospheric  disturbances,  geomagnetic  storms,  and  solar  radiation  storms. 
Several domains have been listed as being potentially directly or indirectly concerned by 
the impacts of SWE. Indeed, either the infrastructure, operations or service provision of 
an industrial domain are directly affected (e.g., degradation of navigation satellite signals, 
change  in  flight  latitude,  etc.);  or  the  impact  is  indirect,  meaning  that,  following  direct 
disturbances  of  the  functioning  of  operations  or  of  service  provision  of  some  space 

128 

 
activities, other domains reliant on these are affected (e.g., the degradation of navigation 
satellite signals affects maritime operations). 

129 

 
 
 
List of domains impacted by SWE: 

Domains 

Aviation 

Impact 
Category 
Economic 

Power grid 
operations 

Strategic 

Social 

Environmental 

Economic 

Strategic 

Social 

Environmental 

Space 
sector 

Spacecraft 
operations 
and design 

Economic 

Strategic 

Impacts 

Additional staff and other operational needs 
due to flights being delayed (quantified) 
Disruption to flight due to damages to aircraft 
and malfunctions 
Delayed journeys due to flights being grounded 
(quantified) 
Increase in morbidity due to exposure to 
radiation 
Increased flight time causing environmental 
damages 
Increased cost due to need of equipment 
replacement 
Loss or damages on equipment due to power 
fluctuations across network 
Need of replacement for transformers 
(quantified) 
Disruption to the running of the economy 
following loss of power in sectors dependent on 
electricity (quantified) 
Disruption to the running of the economy 
following loss of power in sectors dependent on 
electricity (quantified) 
Increase in fuel burnt due to use of fuel power 
energy generators to compensate loss of 
electricity 
Prolonged or permanent loss of satellite 
subsystems and of satellite functionalities 
(quantified) 
Complete loss of satellite/no longer functioning 
(quantified) 
Partial degradation of satellite/reduced 
functionality (quantified) 
Reduced lifespan of specific services/satellites 
(quantified) 

Launch 
operations 

Economic  Waste of propellant due to defueling 

Strategic 

Complete loss of launcher (quantified) 
Delays in launch 

130 

 
 
Impact 1: Temporary disruption/loss of service 

A Single Event Effect (SEE) is a general class of radiation effects on electronic devices. 
SEEs can be of two types: soft (non-destructive) and hard (potentially destructive). 

Soft SEE are generally identified with Single Event Upsets (SEU) - temporarily failure or 
upsets  of subsystems  due to  the effect  of high-energy particle (SEP)  impacts. As SEUs 
are  soft  errors  and  therefore  non-destructive,  the  impact  is  that  some  part  or  all  the 
avionics is temporarily lost. These errors normally appear as transient pulses in logic or 
support  circuitry,  or  as  bit  flips  in  memory  cells  or  registers.  An  SEU  can  cause  the 
payload or subsystem to switch automatically to “safe mode.” In this mode, the system is 
safe,  but  its  activities  are  in  idle,  and  services  can  be  disrupted.  In  case  of  commercial 
satellites, this can generate a loss of revenue for the operator; while in  case of military 
satellites (high requirement in term of availability and continuity of service), an SEU can 
even result in loss of human lives. 

The  table  below  indicates  the  number  of  SEUs  registered  during  Solar  Cycle  23  for  a 
specific satellite fleet, where a solar cycle is the periodic cycle, the Sun goes through, of 
high and low activity that repeats every 11 years. Using this as an example snapshot, it is 
clear many SEUs can therefore occur. 

Single Event Upsets 
Total number of registered SEU 
Number of SEU during solar maximum (1998-2002) 
Total number of monitored satellites 

Number 
226 
21 
8 

Impact 2: Reduced lifespan of specific services/satellites 

Solar  cells  are  degraded  by  solar  particles  during  solar  storms.  This  degradation  is 
expected during the operational life of the satellite, and is factored in during the design 
phase,  during  which  the  expected  efficiency  of  the  solar  panel  at  the  end  of  its 
operational life is defined by customer/user requirements. Solar panels are usually sized 
to ensure extra efficiency at the end of the mission with regards to the defined threshold. 
In  order  to  mitigate  risk  of  augmented  degradation  some  manufacturers  size  the  solar 
panels to allow for an extra 50% of efficiency at the end of the satellite operational life 
(as opposed to around 30%). 

Impact 3: Risk of complete loss/lack of functioning of satellite 

Energetic  particles,  mainly  from  geomagnetic  storms,  can  cause  surface  or  internal 
charging,  by  charging  one  side  of  the  spacecraft  or  internal  components,  with  possible 
electric  discharges  that  can  result  in  malfunctions  or  even  complete  failure  of  the 
satellite. The charging may generate high voltage discharge through the structure of the 
satellite and the active subsystems, with risk of a Single Event Burnout (SEB) that could 
cause  prolonged  or  permanent  loss  of  satellite  subsystems  and  therefore  of  its 
functionalities. Currently, the only mitigations for the charging effect are through passive 

131 

 
mitigation  design,  by  applying  an  appropriate  coating  on  satellite  surfaces  that  can 
potentially accumulate electronic charges. 

In order to calculate the benefit of investing in SWE on space operations, first a baseline 
cost per year was calculated. This baseline figure is the impact of single event upsets in 
LEO  and  GEO  and  is  calculated  by  multiplying  the  number  of  expected  anomalies  per 
year by the cost of an anomaly. These single event upsets are the results of several SWE: 
for  the  calculations,  it  has  been  assumed  that  an  extreme  SWE  would  happen  between 
today and 2040. 

It is assumed that a certain number of anomalies are avoided as a result of investment in 
SWE. This reduction in anomalies is presented as two percentages. The first impact is the 
general reduction in anomalies, which is 10% of the baseline per year. The second impact 
is the percentage of anomalies avoided as a result of better design. This percentage is 0% 
in  2021  and  grows  to  40%  in  2035,  remaining  at  40%  thereafter.  The  table  below 
highlights the baseline impact amount, the anomaly percentages, and the benefit of SWE: 

Baseline Impact of critical and 
non-critical anomalies on LEO 
and GEO commercial satellites 
Anomalies avoided (general) 
Anomalies avoided (design) 
Benefit of SWE 

2021 
EUR 5.84 m 

2030 
EUR 7.57 m 

2040 
EUR 14.15 m 

10% 
0% 
EUR 0.58 m 

10% 
23% 
EUR 2.52 m 

10% 
40% 
EUR 7.08 m 

The arrival of high-energy protons not only affect humans but can also cause damage on 
aviation  induced  by  Single  Event  Effects  (SEE)  and  on  ground  systems93;  particles 
resulting from solar radiation disrupt the charge in semiconductor materials. In order  to 
calculate the benefit of investing in SWE on aviation, first a baseline cost per year of the 
impact  of  space  weather  on  delayed  flights  was calculated.  The  impact  is  quantified  as 
the value of time to passengers that are delayed, and the financial cost of delayed flights. 

The  value  of  time  is  calculated  as  follows:  value  of  an  hour  consumed  (EUR  42.0794) 
multiplied  by  the  number  of  passengers  delayed  and  the  average  length  of  delay  (3 
hours).  

The financial cost of delayed flights is calculated as follows: total flights delayed due to 
space weather x average cost of a 3-hour delayed flight (EUR 46 638). 

It is assumed that investing in SWE will reduce the average flight delay time to 2 hours 
instead of 3 hours. Therefore, the average cost of a 2-hour delayed flight (EUR 32 762) 

93  North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specification (MNPS) Airspace Operations Manual 

94  “Standard  Inputs  for  EUROCONTROL  Cost-Benefit  Analyses”,  Edition  Number  7.0,  Edition  Date 

November 2015. 

132 

 
 
 
is  applied  to  the  total  flights  delayed  due  to  space  weather  to  calculate  a  total  cost  of 
delays under an SWE scenario. The difference between these two values is therefore the 
benefit. 

(million EUR) 
Baseline: financial cost 
Baseline: value of time 
Investment in SWE: financial 
cost 
Investment in SWE: value of time 
Benefit of investing in SWE 

2021 
0.047 
0.019 

0.033 

0.013 
0.020 

2030 
0.084 
0.034 

0.059 

0.023 
0.036 

2040 
0.148 
0.060 

0.104 

0.040 
0.064 

SWE has an impact on power grids. It is assumed that a G5 or G5+ storm95 leads to the 
following outcomes:  

•  3 major city blackouts for 3 days. 
•  100% blackout outside major cities in Europe for 2 weeks, 50% blackout outside 
major  cities  in  Europe  for  3  weeks  and  10%  blackout  outside  major  cities  in 
Europe for 1 week. 

•  68 transformers damaged with a cost of EUR 4.2 million. 

Blackouts  in  major  cities  and  outside  major  cities  have  an  impact  on  GDP,  morbidity, 
and mortality. 

If  there  is  investment  in  SWE,  it  is  assumed  that  a  G5  or  G5+  storm  leads  to  the 
following outcomes: 

•  2 major city blackouts for 2 days. 
•  33% decrease in blackouts outside major cities. 
•  33% decrease in the number of transformers damaged. 

This therefore means that if there is investment in SWE, the associated impact as a result 
of a G5 or G5+ storm event reduces in terms of GDP, morbidity, mortality and damage to 
transformers. 

The following table shows summary of the impact on transformer cost, GDP, mortality, 
and  morbidity  of  space  weather  under  the  baseline,  and  the  total  benefit  as  a  result  of 
investment in space weather. 

95 Geomagnetic Storms 

133 

 
 
 
 
(million EUR) 
Baseline: major cities (GDP, 
mortality, morbidity) 
Baseline: outside major cities (GDP, 
mortality, morbidity) 
Baseline: loss of transformers 
Benefit of SWE: major cities  
Benefit of SWE: outside major 
cities 
Benefit of SWE: loss of 
transformers 

e.  Benefits assessment of NEO  

2021 

204.7 

183.0 

20.6 
113.7 

61.0 

6.9 

2030 

234.1 

205.7 

20.6 
130.0 

68.6 

6.9 

2040 

267.7 

231.6 

20.6 
148.7 

77.2 

6.9 

The  characterisation  of  NEO  impacts  indicates  that  a  NEO  can  cause  anything  from  a 
negligible air blast (<10 m NEO) up to the end of civilisation (>1 km NEO), and these 
impacts vary mostly based on NEO size. However, NEO impacts should be seen in light 
of their probabilities. NEO impacts are rare events (for example on the order of 1 in 70 
years up to 1 in 15 000 years for the NEO family of 20-140 m). 

The following figure provides quantitative figures from these past NEOs (≥20 m) events 
that caused severe consequences to people and property. 

A modelling was performed by PwC (contracted by the Commission) using mostly  the 
ratio of injuries to fatalities during historical tornados and natural events, and the results 
are as follows: 

134 

 
 
 
 
NEO 
Size 

Impact 
Type 

Societal 
Outcome 

Raw Number 

Raw Value 
(million 
EUR) 

Average 
Event Value 
(million 
EUR) 
0 
17 
6.8 

2.5 

0.4 
0 
0.1 

2 137 
1 404 
158 

93 

0.43 
0.01 
0.14 

16 508 
23 550 
1 843 

860 

11 
0.4 
1.5 

0 
57 
23 

8.2 

3.4 
0 
0.7 

7 125 
4 681 
528 

310 

3.6 
0.1 
1.2 

55 028 
78 500 
6 145 

2.867 

90.2 
3.2 
12.1 

9 849 638 
851 923 
74 874 

2 954 891 
255 577 
22 462 

24 841 

7 452 

496 
7.2 
161 

60 
0.9 
19 

20 m  Air Blast 

Tsunami 

50 m  Air Blast 

Tsunami 

140 
m 

Air Blast & 
Crater 

Earthquake 

Tsunami 

1 km  Air Blast & 

Crater 

Earthquake 

Tsunami 

6 712 persons 
100 211 persons 
EUR 528 m 

0 persons  
1 217 persons 
EUR 23 m 

10 km2  

376 km2 

3 persons  
2 persons  
EUR 1.2 m 

3 persons 
0 persons 
EUR 0.7 m 

Fatalities 
Injuries 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Land 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Land 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Land 
Damage 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
Fatalities 
Injuries 
Land 
Damage 
Infrastructure 
Damage 
467 persons  
Fatalities 
155 persons  
Injuries 
Infrastructure  EUR 160 m  

EUR 2 867 m 

51800 persons  
1.7 m persons  
7 468 km2   

9.3 m persons  
18.2 m persons  
90 996 km2   

EUR 24 841 m  

85 persons 
69 persons  
EUR 12.1 milMil  

135 

 
f.  Benefits assessment of GOVSATCOM  

Damage 

The benefits assessment of GOVSATCOM builds on the “Study in support of the Impact 
assessment of an EU GOVSATCOM initiative”, performed by PwC for the Commission 
in  2017.  The  protection  of  key  infrastructures  is  a  very  critical  aspect,  and 
GOVSATCOM  would  be  beneficial  in  these  terms.  Given  the  relevance  of  protecting 
transportation  infrastructures  from  threats  such  as  cyber-attacks,  and  the  potential  help 
that  GOVSATCOM  would  bring  for  this  purpose,  calculations  were  made  considering 
such a scenario. 

In order to calculate the potential impact of GOVSATCOM on cyber-attack mitigation, 
information  has  been  extracted  from  the  ENISA  report  for  transportation  in  the  EU96. 
Taking the reported cyber-attacks in the EU to transportation infrastructures, it is possible 
to: 

•  Extract the number of cyber-attacks in 2021-2022 in Europe, targeting Aviation, 

Rail and Road segment. 

•  Extract the number of cyber-attacks that targeted public authorities and bodies. 
•  Forecast their number up to 2035 with three different growth factors, to account 

for three scenarios, thus for uncertainty. 

•  Multiply the number of cyber-attacks for the average costs faced when receiving 

a cyber-attack to an infrastructure.  

The cyber-attacks on key infrastructure in Europe have been calculated through multiple 
steps. First, the number of reported cyber-attacks in Europe targeting Aviation, Rail and 
Road segment in  2021  and 2022 have been extracted from the ENISA 2023 report.  To 
further  restrict  the  scope,  only  the  attacks  to  public  authorities  and  bodies  have  been 
considered, since GOVSATCOM is intended to serve National and EU actors mainly. 

Secondly,  their  growth  until  2035  was  predicted  with  a  growth  factor  of  32%  in  the 
medium scenario. This growth factor is the result of the average between the growth from 
2021 to 2022 of cyber-attacks in the transportation sector of the ENISA report excluding 
the  maritime  segment  (not  in  GOVSATCOM  scope)  and  the  growth  coming  from  a 
research of Check Point.97 To account for uncertainty, three different scenarios of growth 

96 ENISA Report on Transport Threat Landscape 

97  Check  Point  Research:  Third  quarter  of  2022  reveals  increase  in  cyberattacks  and  unexpected 

developments in global trends 

136 

PotentialEconomicLoss(EUR)Cyber-attacks to key infrastructure in EuropeCyber-attacks to Public Authorities and BodiesAverage cost of a cyber-attack to infrastructures=XX 
 
 
have been implemented: 32% for the medium scenario as above-mentioned, 22% for the 
low scenario and 42% for the high scenario.  

Finally, we extracted the average costs to bear for an attack to a key infrastructure, which 
is estimated at around USD 5 million98 following the IBM report on cyber security. 

As a result, the potential economic loss of cyber-attacks to transportation infrastructure in 
Europe until 2035 are calculated. They range, cumulatively, between EUR 3.7 billion and 
EUR 18.3 billion, proving that there is room and need for GOVSATCOM to support the 
infrastructure segment and allow safer, cheaper, and more effective communication: 

IMPACT: GOVSATCOM potential 
impact on cyber-attacks to 
transportation infrastructure 

Cumulative: 2025-2035 

Low scenario 

Medium 
scenario 

High 
scenario 

EUR 3 780 
559 016 

EUR 8 412 
179 900 

EUR 18 325 
648 110 

C.  Relevance 

The Space Regulation stipulated that “To maximise the socio-economic return from the 
Programme, it is essential to maintain state-of-the-art systems, to upgrade them to meet 
evolving  users’  needs.”  The  mechanisms  to  keep  the  Programme  relevant  are  thus 
embedded  into  its  life  cycle,  by  consulting  users  and  updating  the  portfolio  of  services 
and data provided by all components. 

The main elements used for the evaluation were: 

• 

Inputs  from  previous  SWD  such  as  the  Expression  of  User  Needs  for  the 
Copernicus Programme, or other information from users as compiled by agencies: 
ESA Customer Requirements Document for SWE, the EUSPA User Consultation 
Platform for Galileo/EGNOS99.  
•  Consultations with entrusted entities. 
•  Consultations with end user community representatives. 

D.  Coherence 

The  coherence  assessment  was  be  done  based  on  a  comparison  of  the  EU  Space 
Programme  with  different  policies  and  actions.  Other  relevant  EU  policies  were  first 
identified  (such  as  environmental  and  climate  change  policies,  transportation  policies 
etc.). Afterwards the coherence verification was performed taking into account also EU 
member states national policies, or international organisations’ policies. 

98  IBM  Report:  Half  of  Breached  Organizations  Unwilling  to  Increase  Security  Spend  Despite  Soaring 

Breach Costs, Jul 24 2023 

99 EUSPA Report on User Needs and Requirements 2020 

137 

 
 
E.  EU Added Value 

The  EU  added  value  assessment  took  as  inputs  the  analysis  done  under  the  other  axes 
particularly  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  For  the  companies  involved  in  the  space 
domain, Eurospace and ESA have information covering the EU’s investments and ESA’s 
combined.  It  is  impossible  make  a  segregation  since  most  private  companies 
apply/depend  on  funds  from  both  organisations  (and  subcontractors  can  be  from  a 
different country). Companies contracted by ESA directly (not acting for the EU) can be 
from all 22 ESA Member States100 and not just the European Union Member States but 
there is a very large intersection in membership. 

100  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  The  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom 

138 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

In accordance with the Better Regulation toolbox, the assessment of the performance of 
the implementation of tasks, objectives, mandates and policies was be done based on the 
evaluation  of  five  main  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU 
added value. 

The overall evaluation matrix is presented in the following table: 

Applied to  
EUSPA (for Galileo and 
EGNOS101) 

ESA (Copernicus) 
EUMETSAT (Copernicus) 
EEA (Copernicus) 
Mercator Ocean 
(Copernicus) 
ECMWF (Copernicus) 
EMSA (Copernicus) 
FRONTEX (Copernicus) 
EUSPA (Copernicus) 
EUSPA (SST) 
ESA (SWE and NEO) 
ESA (GOVSATCOM) 
EUSPA (GOVSATCOM) 
Galileo 
EGNOS 
Copernicus 
SSA 
GOVSATCOM 

Galileo 
EGNOS 
Copernicus 
SSA 
GOVSATCOM 

Data sources 
Analysis of 
relevant 
documentation  
Targeted interviews 
(staff from EC, 
EUSPA and ESA) 
Analysis of 
statistical and 
quantitative data 

Analysis of 
relevant 
documentation  
Analysis of 
statistical and 
quantitative data 
Analysis of 
relevant 
documentation  
Analysis of 
statistical and 
quantitative data 

Question 
Is the space component 
Effective? 

Indicator 
- 

Programme 
Indicators 
as  per  Annex  I  of  the 
Regulation  
as 

the 
Contribution Agreement 

per 

-  KPIs 

-  Target Outcome  
-  Actual Outcome  
- 

(On 

Status 
Delayed)  

time/ 

Is the space component 
Efficient? 

BENEFITS102 / COST103 = 
EFFICIENCY 

Not applicable 

Coherence: 
To what extent is this 
intervention coherent 
with other interventions 
which have similar 
objectives?   
To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 
internally?   
To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 
with wider EU policy?   
To what extent is the 

101 Includes tasks subdelegated to ESA 

102 Indicated in the SWD (identified directly or based on previous studies) 

103 EU budget allocated for the relevant period 

139 

 
 
intervention coherent 
with international 
obligations? 
Added Value: 
What is the additional 
value resulting from the 
EU intervention, 
compared to what 
could be achieved by 
Member States at 
national and/or regional 
levels?   
To what extent do the 
issues addressed by the 
intervention continue to 
require action at EU 
level?  
Is the component 
Relevant? 

Not applicable 

Galileo 
EGNOS 
Copernicus 
SSA 
GOVSATCOM 

Analysis of 
relevant 
documentation  
Analysis of 
statistical and 
quantitative data 

Comparison between user 
needs (from previous 
documentation) and services 
currently provided 
Highlighting the needs of 
end users, ensuring that 
space services provided are 
driven by these needs 

Copernicus 

Galileo and EGNOS 

Examining the link between 
user needs and service 
definition 

SSA 

As per questionnaire 
(classified) 

GOVSATCOM 

Updating previous 
consultations plus 
several new 
interviews 
No new 
consultation (desk 
update of previous 
ones of 2020 and 
2022) 
Targeted 
interviews (staff 
from EC, EUSPA 
and ESA) 
The actual 
interviews have 
been conducted in 
the past and are 
classified, the 
Study and SWD 
make a public 
summary of it 

140 

 
 
 
A.  Effectiveness 

The  objectives  of  the  Programme  are  measured  in  the  Programme  Performance 
Statement.  

The Commission’s Programme Performance Statements104 for the Space Programme 
detail every year the baseline, annual implementation and long term (2027) targets of the 
main  KPIs  annexed  to  the  Regulation  and  linked  with  the  Specific  objectives  of  the 
Programme.  It  clarifies  the  source  of  information  and  identifies  the  methodology  and 
provides a clear overview on the implementation of the Programme and its components 
for the period 2021-2027. 

The Programme Performance Statements have the following structure (it is repeated for 
each main KPI): 

the  differences  among 

Given 
their  complex 
implementation,  for  the  Programme  Performance  Statements  main  KPIs  have  been 
identified for each component with a few transversal main KPIs.  

the  Programme  components  and 

To  perform  an  accurate  comparison  and  assessment  of  the  outcomes  versus  the 
expectations,  the  performance  of  the  entrusted  entities  or  the  implementation  of  new 
activities where the Programme Statement is not providing any data, are measured based 
on the evaluation matrix described below. The evaluation matrix for effectiveness is an 
excel  questionnaire  which  was  sent  to  all  the  entrusted  entities  to  whom  Programme 
funds were delegated. Information was collected on: 

A.  The year of implementation (2021, 2022 or 2023) 
B.  Activities implemented 
C.  Expected Outcome 
D.  Programme Indicators as per Annex I of the Regulation 
E.  KPIs as per the Contribution Agreement  
F.  Target Outcome  
G.  Actual Outcome 
H.  Status (On time/ Delayed) 
I.  Allocated Budget 
J.  Budget Spent 
K.  Budget Expected to spend 

104 Report on the Performance of the EU Space Programme 

141 

 
 
 
This was repeated for each component of the Programme. The results, measured as per 
the KPIs identified in the Contribution Agreements are shown in Annex II. 

B.  Efficiency 

To  evaluate  the  efficiency  of  the  Programme  a  costs  assessment  was  performed 
(assessment  of  resource  and  inputs)  and  compared  to  the  benefits  previously  evaluated 
(under effectiveness) in a cost-benefits format as demonstrated in the figure below: 

Checking the Efficiency starts from the standard Better Regulation questions: 

•  To what  extent are the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects  which 

have been achieved?  

•  To what extent are the costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? What factors 

are influencing any discrepancies?  

•  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the  achievements  observed 

were attained?  

•  How  affordable  were  the  costs  borne  by  different  stakeholder  groups,  given  the 

benefits they received?  

•  To what extent has the intervention been cost effective? 

Furthermore,  the  exact  modelling,  points  of  comparison  and  questions  are  tailored  to 
each component of the Space Programme and presented in Annex II, B. 

C.  Relevance 

Checking the Relevance starts from the standard Better Regulation questions: 

•  To what extent is the intervention still relevant?  
•  To what extent have the (original) objectives proven to have been appropriate for 

the intervention in question?  

•  How  well  do  the  (original)  objectives  (still)  correspond  to  the  needs  within  the 

EU?  

•  How  well  adapted  is  the  intervention  to  subsequent  technological  or  scientific 
advances?  (N.B.  Could  include  issues  related  to  the  specify  policy  here  e.g., 
social, environmental)  

•  How relevant is the EU intervention to EU citizens? 

The questions are further tailored as described in Annex II, part C. 

142 

EfficiencyEU InterventionInputs and resources for programme implementationOutputsResultsImpacts 
 
The matrix can be summarised as in the picture below: 

The first step is a highlight of the status quo. It is based on desk research, market reports 
and other data to give a high-level indication of the current state of the market.  

The second step deals with identifying use cases. The use cases are concrete examples of 
where  the  Union  Space  Programme  currently  is  or  could  be  used  to  improve  the  user 
experience in the sector.  

The third step is technical requirements such as resolution, latency, precision, reliability, 
etc., or could be qualitative needs for users such as dedicated platforms. 

Last  is  the  gap  analysis.  This  is  based  on  stakeholder  consultation  and  looks  into  the 
extent  to  which  the  current  Union  Space  Programme  meets  the  needs  of  the  user 
communities.  

Consultations with Entrusted Entity representatives and desk research identified whether 
these gaps are being addressed, and what is required for the gaps to be addressed.  

D.  Coherence 

Checking the Coherence starts with the standard Better Regulation questions: 

•  To what extent is this intervention coherent with other interventions which have 

similar objectives?  

•  To what extent is the intervention coherent internally?  
•  To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy?  
•  To what extent is the intervention coherent with international obligations? 

As explained in Annex II, part D, the coherence logic has been tailored as in the figure 
below: 

143 

 
 
E.  EU Added Value 

Checking the value added starts with the standard Better Regulation questions: 

•  What  is  the additional value resulting  from  the  EU intervention(s), compared to 
what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels?  
•  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the  intervention  continue  to  require 

action at EU level?  

For  EU  added  value  the  inputs  were  desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultations.  The 
aim  was  to  determine  the  added  value  achieved  by  the  component  as  a  whole,  beyond 
what  would  have  been  achieved  by  Member  States  acting  alone,  in  a  qualitative  way. 
This includes an overview of the performance of the component compared to what could 
be  achieved  on  a  national  scale  from  the  perspective  of  users,  Member  States,  and  the 
overall perception on an international scale. 

The logic is pictured below: 

144 

EU InterventionCoherenceOther EU policiesExternal factorsResultsImpactsEU InterventionEU Added ValueResultsImpacts 
 
 
 
Ccosts and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Costs 

Direct compliance costs (adjustment costs, 
administrative costs, regulatory charges) 
Enforcement costs (costs associated with activities 
linked to the implementation of an initiative such as 
monitoring, inspections and adjudication/litigation) 
Indirect costs (indirect compliance costs or other 
indirect costs such as transaction costs)  

Not 
applicable 

The Programme does bring 
any cost to citizens or 
consumers (all is provided 
for free) 

Not applicable 

The Programme does 
bring any cost to 
businesses (all is 
provided for free) 

Not applicable 

The Programme does bring 
any cost to administrations 
(all is provided for free) 

All benefits are considered recurrent (the underlying calculations and explanations can be found in Section 3.1.4.2 of the Supporting Study). The services and data provided by the 
Programme are embedded in the daily activities of every end-user, regardless if it is a citizen, a company or an administration. It is not possible to make a precise apportionment between 
these three categories: there are for example more than one billion Galileo receivers, it is impossible to identify to whom each belongs and for what activities it is used. 

Benefits for Administrations for increased 
ability to meet EU air pollution targets 

Benefits for Citizens for decreased exposure 
to air pollution 

Benefits for Businesses for reduced costs as a 
result of better solar panels infrastructure 
management 

2017-2022 
2023-2035  
Total  

2017-2022 
2023-2035  
Total 

2017-2022  
2023-2035 
Total 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
2 176 757 203€ 
6 599 023 706€ 
8 775 780 910€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

3 265 135 805€ 
9 893 334 795€ 
13 158 470 599€ 

4 353 514 406€ 
13 158 470 599€ 
17 544 627 466€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
317 882€ 
5 549 412€ 
5 867 295€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
1 452 978€ 
3 656 584€ 
5 109 562€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
367 155€ 
10 038 892€ 
10 406 047€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
2 164 026€ 
5 165 925€ 
7 329 952€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
394 576€ 
14 070 040€ 
14 464 616€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
3 490 714€ 
7 546 708€ 
11 037 422€ 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits for Businesses for reduced CO2 
emissions due to a decrease in reliance on 
fossil fuel energy sources 

Benefits for Citizens for improved food 
security 

Benefits for Businesses for improved 
agriculture profitability and cost efficiency 

Benefits for Administrations for cost 
reduction of forest management and control 

Benefits for Businesses in improved yields in 
forests 

Benefits for Administrations to improve and 
restore forest ecosystems and green 
infrastructures 

Benefits for Administrations to improve 
profitability in the Hydropower sector 

2017-2022  
2023-2035  
Total  

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
23 740 720€ 
48 392 817€ 
72 133 538€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
35 412 625€ 
68 384 422€ 
103 797 048€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
57 196 419€ 
99 958 023€ 
157 154 442€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
591 402 827€ 
5 992 296 686€ 
6 583 699 514€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
862 061 093€ 
3 698 638 481€ 
4 560 699 575€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

971 626 631€ 
8 407 031 477€ 
9 378 658 108€ 

1 342 720 425€ 
1 038 555 268€ 
11 728 273 108€ 

Neutral scenario 

1 179 353 866€ 
5 822 416 798€ 
7 001 770 664€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
1 433 002 370€ 
8 252 719 029€ 
9 685 721 399€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

Neutral 
scenario 

Optimistic 
scenario 

7 648 747€ 

17 029 701€ 
24 678 449€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
120 698 334€ 
502 732 781€ 
623 431 115€ 

9 133 699€ 
19 747 414€ 
28 881 114€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
142 852 938€ 
582 750 703€ 
725 603 642€ 

10 618 651€ 
22 465 127€ 
33 083 779€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
165 007 543€ 
662 768 625€ 
827 776 169€ 

Neutral 
scenario 

628 248 570€ 
5 397 112 836€ 
6 025 361 406€ 

Optimistic scenario 

942 372 855€ 
8 095 669 255€ 
9 038 042 110€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

314 124 285€ 
2 698 556 418€ 
3 012 680 703€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits for Businesses for improved 
agriculture productivity through better 
irrigation management 

Benefits for Administrations for reduced 
groundwater depletion 

Benefits for Administrations for improved 
restoration of wetlands ecosystems 

Benefits for Businesses for reduced 
maintenance costs and improved safety to 
water and gas pipeline monitoring 

Benefits for Businesses for increased revenues 
due improved offshore wind energy 
production 

Benefits for Administrations for reduced 
toxic emissions and avoided waste of water 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 

2023-2035 

Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 

21 356 075€ 
438 496 811€ 
459 852 886€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
321 235 387€ 
1 098 923 802€ 
1 420 159 190€ 

40 438 488€ 
691 858 149€ 
732 296 638€ 

70 337 564€ 
1 125 191 522€ 
1 195 529 087€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

383 374 426€ 
1 391 532 096€ 
1 774 906 522€ 

509 441 995€ 
2 002 035 952€ 
2 511 477 948€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
305 535 473€ 
3 304 825 843€ 
3 610 361 316€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
43 841 339€ 
152 007 122€ 
195 848 461€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
52 308 890€ 
192 481 760€ 
244 790 650€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
69 491 523€ 
276 928 869€ 
346 420 392€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

509 225 788€ 
5 508 043 072€ 
6 017 268 860€ 

712 916 104€ 
7 711 260 300€ 
8 424 176 405€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

Neutral 
scenario 

Optimistic 
scenario 

236 132 456€ 

259 883 177 

283 633 897€ 

459 642 458€ 

505 786 029€ 

551 929 600€ 

695 774 915€ 

765 669 206€ 

835 563 497€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
297 640 464€ 
2 667 479 219€ 
2 965 119 684€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

671 197 473€ 
5 136 945 885€ 
5 808 143 358€ 

1 594 539 832€ 
12 439 213 980€ 
14 033 753 812€ 

Pessimistic scenario 
129 307 747€ 

Neutral scenario 
304 630 987€ 

Optimistic scenario 
721 073 533€ 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits for reduced cost and increased 
revenues for Oil and Gas Businesses  

Benefit for Citizens related to avoided 
economic losses from climate related extreme 
weather events 

Benefits for Citizens for reduced fatalities 
caused by urban heat islands 

Benefits  for Administrations related to 
reduced costs of land planning 

Benefits  for Administrations to prevent loss 
of land 

Benefits for protected coastal population 
against natural disasters 

2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 

1 183 866 008€ 
1 313 173 755€ 

2 279 749 145€ 
2 584 380 132€ 

5 479 604 183€ 
6 200 677 716€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
1 667 281 220€ 
4 370 149 810€ 
6 037 431 030€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

2 576 434 229€ 
5 970 020 931€ 
8 546 455 159€ 

3 621 606 426€ 
7 820 912 221€ 
11 442 518 647€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
6 985 764€ 
212 547 335€ 
219 533 100€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
10 478 646€ 
318 821 003€ 
329 299 650€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
18 628 705€ 
564 298 750€ 
582 927 457€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

7 025 056€ 
759 668 646€ 
766 693 703€ 

111 64 453€ 
1 313 970 471€ 
1 325 134 924€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

517 774 444€ 
1 092 918 620€ 
1 610 693 065€ 

1 115 206 496€ 
2 353 978 566€ 
3 469 185 062€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
39 785 766€ 
93 462 408€ 
133 248 174€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
16 608 730€ 
35 604 114€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
119 357 298€ 
280 387 224€ 
399 744 522€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
44 289 947€ 
94 944 305€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
198 928 831€ 
467 312 040€ 
666 240 871€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
99 652 382€ 
213 624 686€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
3 248 948€ 
322 864 349€ 
326 113 298€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
244 947 141€ 
517 034 578€ 
761 981 719€ 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Businesses benefits for protection of 
agriculture 

Businesses benefits for increased productivity 
associated with reduced fishing time 

Benefits for Citizens for increased 
productivity associated with harmful algal 
blooms 

Benefits for Citizens for reduced treatment 
costs associated with jellyfish sting 

Businesses benefits for reduced costs of arctic 
navigation 

Businesses benefits for avoided loss of goods 
during maritime transport 

Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

52 212 844€ 

139 234 252€ 

313 277 069€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
43 365 243€ 
76 046 150€ 
119 411 393€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
66 321 188€ 
251 209 837€ 
317 531 026€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
30 572€ 
208 255€ 
238 828€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
1 510 301€ 
5 614 170€ 
7 124 472€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
65 047 865€ 
115 381 830€ 
180 429 695€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
99 481 782€ 
376 814 756€ 
476 296 539€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
53 502€ 
364 446€ 
417 949€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
1 678 113€ 
6 237 967€ 
7 916 080€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
86 730 487€ 
157 342 720€ 
244 073 208€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
132 642 377€ 
502 419 675€ 
635 062 053€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
76 431€ 
520 638€ 
597 070€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
1 845 924€ 
6 861 763€ 
8 707 688€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
39 875 316€ 
485 774 974€ 
525 650 290€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

75 577 119€ 
679 577 304€ 
755 154 423€ 

146 902 820€ 
1 230 168 156€ 
1 377 070 976€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
12 216 415€ 
43 144 329€ 
55 360 744€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
37 143 273€ 
137 368 716€ 
174 511 990€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
63 392 065€ 
256 625 158€ 
320 017 224€ 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Businesses benefits for fuel savings reached 
through optimized navigation routes 

Benefits for Administrations for reduced 
forest fire area 

Benefits  for Administrations for reduced 
toxic emissions to reduced forest fire area 

Businesses benefits for reduced economic 
damages in forestry 

Businesses benefits for reduced economic 
damages thanks to flood forecasting 

Benefits for Citizens for avoided fatalities and 
injuries thanks to flood forecasting 

Benefits for Administrations for avoided 
fatalities and injuries thanks to improved 
response 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
7 407 471€ 
15 154 885€ 
22 562 356€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
11 273 168€ 
24 069 631€ 
35 342 800€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
15 420 935€ 
35 911 212€ 
51 332 148€ 

Pessimistic scenario 
252 258 736€ 
611 866 807€ 
864 125 544€ 

Neutral scenario 
313 482 401€ 
756 394 901€ 
1 069 877 303€ 

Optimistic scenario 
374 706 066€ 
900 922 996€ 
1 275 629 063€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
377 562 406€ 
701 059 539€ 
1 078 621 946€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

468 929 657€ 
865 030 764€ 
1 333 960 421€ 

560 296 908€ 
1 029 001 989€ 
1 589 298 897€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

1 934 837 056€ 
3 569 178 343€ 
5 504 015 399€ 

2 311 824 819€ 
4 245 735 258€ 
6 557 560 077€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

2 164 091 906€ 
14 869 297 368€ 
17 033 389 273€ 

2 823 302 239€ 
19 374 401 054€ 
22 197 703 293€ 

Neutral scenario 

Optimistic scenario 

64 996 316€ 
844 706 602€ 
909 702 918€ 

84 229 721€ 
1 101 974 015€ 
1 186 203 736€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

Neutral 
scenario 

Optimistic 
scenario 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
1 557 849 293€ 
2 892 621 429€ 
4 450 470 722€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
1 504 881 572€ 
10 364 193 681€ 
11 869 075 253€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
45 762 911€ 
587 439 190€ 
633 202 101€ 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits for increased revenues for the fishing 
industry 

Benefits for Administrations for preservation 
of fish stocks sustainability on the long term 

Businesses benefits for reduction of casualties 
in maritime disasters (regular maritime traffic) 

Benefits for Administrations  for reduction of 
casualties in maritime disasters (refugees 
boats) 

Businesses benefits for reduced economic 
damage due to oil spills 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 

2023-2035 

Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

3 835 619€ 
49 236 232€ 
53 071 852€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
277 553€ 
2 362 474€ 
2 640 028€ 

5 447 668€ 
70 799 108€ 
76 246 776€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
510 239€ 
3 416 939€ 
3 927 179€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 

Neutral 
scenario 

7 059 716€ 
92 361 983€ 
99 421 700€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
815 269€ 
4 558 570€ 
5 373 840€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 

210 558€ 

387 078€ 

618 480€ 

1 792 221€ 

2 592 161€ 

3 458 226€ 

2 002 780€ 

2 979 239€ 

4 076 706€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
5 622 341€ 
309 793 120€ 
315 415 462€ 

Neutral scenario  Optimistic scenario 

52 588 548€ 
617 700 378€ 
670 288 927€ 

157 077 098€ 
1 021 243 349€ 
1 178 320 448€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
2 555 268€ 
67 322 996€ 
69 878 264€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
124 869 339€ 
154 278 285€ 
279 147 625€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
16 537 042€ 
120 044 758€ 
136 581 801€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
166 598 150€ 
203 226 984€ 
369 825 134€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
40 953 638€ 
187 828 213€ 
228 781 852€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
214 017 182€ 
257 773 955€ 
471 791 138€ 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Administrations  benefits for reduced 
environmental damage due to oil spills 

Administrations  benefits  for increased 
interception of illegal goods (border 
surveillance) 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

2017-2022 
2023-2035 
Total 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
59 461 590€ 
73 465 850€ 
132 927 440€ 

Pessimistic 
scenario 
2 255 210€ 
11 223 203€ 
13 478 413€ 

Neutral 
scenario 
79 332 452€ 
96 774 754€ 
176 107 207€ 

Neutral scenario 

3 847 300€ 
14 210 001€ 
18 057 301€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
101 912 943€ 
122 749 502€ 

224 662 446€ 

Optimistic 
scenario 
5 737 184€ 
17 488 151€ 
23 225 336€ 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  
Call for evidence Mid-term evaluation of the Space Programme105 

The  Commission  launched  a  call  for  evidence  (consultation)  to  gather  stakeholders’ 
views on the functioning of the Programme and the performance of EUSPA. It has been 
promoted  via  the  Commission’s  official  social  media  networks  in  addition  to  its 
publication on the Have Your Say portal. The Commission used the results of the call for 
evidence to feed the evaluation and the preparation of the SWD and Report.  

The  consultation  run  from  12  October  2023  to  16  November  2023.  Overall,  this 
consultation can be considered comprehensive, as it has received 23 responses from the 
largest and most representative associations in the sector, representing over 150 members 
from numerous countries. 

It is important to highlight that the respondents praised the EU for its accomplishment in 
implementing an ambitious programme despite challenging economic conditions. 

The respondents have emphasized that the majority of the Programme is flown down to 
the industry through contracts that have insufficient flexibility (especially in light of high 
inflation-  Hyperinflation).  They  have  also  expressed  a  need  for  greater  longer-term 
visibility in the industrial procurement of the Programme. 

Respondents  have  also  urged  the  Programme  to  improve  its  resilience  and  non-
dependence  from  third  countries  to  secure  strategic  autonomy  in  critical  areas  such  as 
raw materials, and critical technologies as well as the protection of space assets, as also 
recognized  by  the  March  2023  EU  Space  Strategy  for  Security  and  Defence.  The 
respondents recognise that increased funding in Europe is needed to translate into reality 
the  concept  of  European  strategic  autonomy.  Regarding  the  protection  of  space 
infrastructures,  a  higher  attention  should  be  given  to  Space  Situational  Awareness  (and 
invest more into Space Weather) and to pursue synergies between “defence” and “space” 
through dual-use activities. The respondents also called for synergies were with other EU 
initiatives such as Destination Earth. Overall, the Programme was encouraged to further 
expand and strengthen its engagement into international relations. 

Respondents from the public sector, who operate within limited budgets, emphasized the 
importance of keeping data and services free of charge.  

Respondents  also  asked  for  measures  to  strengthen  the  space  industry,  ensure  its 
competitiveness, and promote a “buy EU” procurement strategy. 

105 Call for Feedback for the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Space Programme 

154 

 
 
 
Beyond  developing  capabilities,  the  respondents  emphasised  the  need  for  the  European 
Union,  including  through  the  EU  Space  Programme,  to  must  better  leverage  its 
regulatory  strengths  and  considerable  market  size  to  foster  the  demand  for  new  space 
services.  For  examples,  in  reference  to  policies  related  to  the  Programme,  respondents 
highlighted the need to embed/integrate positioning services into rail transport, like what 
has already been done for air transport. They also  stressed the need to  further integrate 
the services of the Programme in the climate and ocean conservation policies. 

Some individual responses have highlighted the importance of improving services for the 
outermost  regions  of  the  EU,  and  one  respondent  proposed  that  the  Earth  observation 
needs of the Programme should rely exclusively on third-party data purchases. 

Additionally,  responding  SMEs  have  welcomed  the  special  focus  of  the  Space 
Programme on them, particularly in terms of procurement and subcontracting. 

Finally, some feedback from citizens has shown a limited expertise and understanding of 
the  Programme,  with  comments  largely  falling  outside  the  scope  of  the  consultation. 
However, it is noteworthy that there was an encouragement for the Programme to invest 
in outer-space exploration. 

In addition to the Call for Evidence, questionnaires and interviews were sent (bilaterally) 
to the Agencies to whom the Space budget was entrusted. Furthermore, to identify gaps 
in  user  needs  for  Copernicus,  several  interviews  were  carried  out  with  representatives 
from the expert group of the Programme Committee (Copernicus User Forum).  

The evaluation also relies on consultations with the Commission services (Inter- Service 
Group on Space), dedicated meetings with the Space Programme Committee’s different 
configurations and a meeting with representatives of the industry in the framework of the 
Commission Expert Subgroup on Policies & Programmes relevant to EU  SDA Industry 
SDA,  particularly  on  the  topic  of  new  ways  of  doing  space  procurement.  The 
presentations in the Space Programme Committee were welcome but did not trigger but 
did not produce relevant comments, but more request for clarifications on the content. 

Commission  Expert  Subgroup  on  Policies  &  Programmes  relevant  to  EU  SDA 
Industry, meeting of the 16 of November 2023106 

The Members (list below) of the subgroup were asked to discuss about the “New way of 
doing space procurement”, around the following guiding questions: 

In  your  view,  which  factors  contribute  most  to  the  difficulties  in  complying  with 
contractual schedules and Programme plans and what  measures could  be implemented 
so  that  the  Programmes’  roadmaps  could  be  reliable  in  the  horizon  of  3-5  years? 

106 Documents for the Fourth Meeting Commission Expert Subgroup on Policies & Programmes Relevant 

to EU Space Industry 

155 

 
 
Possible topics could include the improvement of: ways of making procurements; ways to 
estimate and account for risks in the original schedules; structuring of procurement lots; 
relations with the industry. 

At the meeting of the 16 of November 2016 of the SDA Expert Group, the Commission 
presented  an  update  on  several  recent  initiatives,  such  as  the  Copernicus  Dynamic 
Purchasing  System,  the  Flight  Ticket  Initiative  or  the  Public-Private  Partnership 
approach  of  IRIS2,  aimed  at  making  the  procurement  process  simpler,  more  agile,  and 
allowing for on-boarding new actors. In addition, the Commission outlined some issues 
with the current procurement processes which often result in delays and over-costs. The 
Commission presented a list of questions to the industry to start the discussion. 

The Members of the Expert Group identified changes in security requirements introduced 
during  the  execution  phase  as  one  of  the  main  contributors  to  delays  and  over-costs. 
Additionally,  public  procurement  projects  relaying  on  technologies  at  a  low  maturity 
level  which  further  complicates  the  process.  The  intervening  Members  suggested  that 
sometimes there is overspecification in the procurements from the public sector and that 
procurements  could  set  only  mission  and  service  requirements  and  leave  the  system 
requirements  and  design  to  the  industry  (likely  in  dual  or  triple  source)  for  a  final 
selection before implementation. This approach could be further strengthened by having 
two  or  more  contractors  competing  at  the  design  stage.  Some  Members  added  that  the 
inclusion  of  startups  and  scaleups  in  the  implementation  of  the  EU  space  programme 
components can also contribute to the issues. Furthermore, in case a procurement process 
has  more  than  one  client  or  interlocutor  (e.g.,  EUSPA  and  ESA)  the  problems  with 
coordination  between  the  public  entities  can  cause  delays  for  the  private  sector.  In 
addition,  the  Members  recognised  that  contrary  to  the  recent  years’  tendency  of  cost 
reduction,  now  the  focus  was  on  timely  delivery  and  hence  suggested  that  the  public 
sector should prioritise quick deliveries even to the expense of quality risks (which could 
be corrected in evolutions). Moreover, some Members consider that space procurements 
are unique and sometimes the Financial Regulation is not fit for purpose. The Members 
of the Expert Group added that a better understanding of the Commission political goals 
and  expectations  would  allow  them  to  better  implement  public  contracts.  Access  to 
qualified workforce and insufficient budgets of public projects were additional problems 
identified  by  the  Members.  Nonetheless,  the  Members  underlined,  that  given  the 
challenging circumstances and global competition the EU Space Programme was still a 
success. Other interventions suggested broadening the Dynamic Purchasing system from 
only data to services as well, and establishing a system through which the Commission 
could  report to  the industry on the statistics related to  its space procurement  processes. 
Lastly, the Members highlighted that some of the contractual schedules are too ambitious 
from the outset but that the industry is cautious in negotiating on this point in order to not 
lose the public contracts. 

The Commission took good note of the Members interventions, which provide food for 
thought in the preparations of the future space programme regulation. It recognised that 
public  procurement  processes  are  often  exceedingly  risk-averse  but  reassured  the 

156 

 
Members  that  it  is  something  that  it  was  working  on.  The  Commission  recognised  the 
importance of skills and education policy, budget for R&D activities to achieve mature 
technologies to implement and stressed that it was working on it, within the limits of its 
competence. 

In addition, in the same meeting the Commission presented the preliminary results of the 
mid-term review of the Regulation. The Members of the Expert Group inquired whether 
the Article 24 of the Regulation would be under review as well. The Commission replied 
that  the  study  was  based  on  already  established  KPIs,  looking  at  past  activities  and 
budget  implementation.  The  Commission  will  reflect  upon  all  provisions  of  the 
Regulation when the drafting the next one. 

157 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI:   COHERENCE AMONG EU SPACE COMPONENT 

Segments 

Subsegments 
Environmental 
monitoring 

Natural resources 
monitoring 

Agriculture 

Operations 
management 

Weather services for 
agriculture 
Communication 

Environmental 
Monitoring 

Navigation 

Operations 
Management 

Surveillance 

Weather Services 
Animal tracking for 
biodiversity purposes 
Coastal ecosystems 
monitoring 
Snow and ice 
ecosystems 
monitoring 
Terrestrial ecosystems 
monitoring 
Water ecosystems 
monitoring 
Climate change 
mitigation and 
adaptation 

Aviation and 
drones 

Biodiversity, 
ecosystems, 
and natural 
capital 

Climate 
services 

Applications 

Carbon capture & content assessment 
Environmental impact monitoring 
Biomass monitoring 
Crop yield forecasting 
Soil condition monitoring 
Vegetation monitoring 
Asset monitoring 
Automatic steering 
CAP monitoring 
Farm machinery guidance 
Farm management systems 
Field definition 
Livestock wearables 
Pastureland management 
Precision irrigation 
Variable rate application 
Climate services for agriculture 
Weather forecasting for agriculture 
ATM System Timing 
Aircraft Emission Measurement and 
Monitoring 
Particulate Matter Monitoring 
Drone navigation 
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) 
VFR complement 
Aircraft Maintenance and Operation 
Optimisation 
Airport Capacity and Safety, Monitoring 
Terrain 
Obstacles near an Airport 
Electronic Conspicuity 
GADSS 
Infrastructure Timing 
Hazardous Weather Identification 
Animal tracking for biodiversity 
purposes 

Coastal ecosystems monitoring 

Snow and ice ecosystems monitoring 

Terrestrial ecosystems monitoring 

Water ecosystems monitoring 

Climate change mitigation and 
adaptation 

158 

GNSS  EO  Synergy 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

X  

 X 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Segments 

Subsegments 

Climate modelling 

Climate monitoring 
and forecasting 

Corporate 

Consumer 
solutions, 
tourism and 
health 

Health & Lifestyle 

Emergency 
management 
and 
humanitarian 
aid 

Navigation & 
Tracking 

Robotics 

Tourism 

Early warning 

Migration and 
settlement 

Post-event analysis 
Preparedness 
Rapid mapping 

Search and Rescue 

Energy Network 
Fidelity 
Environmental Impact 
Monitoring 

Applications 
EO-based climate modelling 
GNSS-based climate modelling 
Climate monitoring 
Climate forecasting 
Billing 
Geo-advertising 
Mapping & GIS 
Satcom users 
Workforce management 
Air quality monitoring 
Games 
Geo-tagging 
mHealth 
Safety and emergency 
Social networks 
Sport, fitness and wellness incl. 
specialist support tracking 
UV monitoring 
Navigation 
Personal & asset tracking 
Visually impaired support 
Consumer robotic 
Enhanced human 
Points of interest 
Early warning 
GNSS-related ocean monitoring buoys 
EO human displacement monitoring 
Management of refugee camps 
Population counting 
Telematics for Humanitarian Aid 
Post-event analysis 
Preparedness 
Rapid mapping 
Beacons for Aviation 
Beacons for Land 
Beacons for Maritime 
Situational awareness supporting search 
and rescue 
Energy Network conditions monitoring 
Phasor Measurement Units (PMU) 
Environmental impact assessment of 
energy and mineral resources plants 

Energy and 
raw materials 

Market Intelligence  Supply chain insights 

Raw Materials 

Renewable Energy 

Illegal mining monitoring 
Mining machinery guidance 
Mining Surveying 
Site selection, planning and monitoring 
for raw materials 
Renewable energy assessment potential 
and forecast 

159 

GNSS  EO  Synergy 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x  

 x 
 x 
x 

x 

x 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Segments 

Subsegments 

Applications 

Environmental 
monitoring 

Environmental 
auditing 
Environmental 
resources 
management 
Impact studies and 
ESG 

Aquaculture 

Fisheries and 
aquaculture 

Fisheries 

Forestry 

Environmental 
monitoring 

Natural resources 
monitoring 

Operations 
management 

Environmental Impact 
Monitoring 

Infrastructure 
Construction and 
Monitoring 

Infrastructure 

Infrastructure 
Planning 

Timing & 
Synchronisation 
of Telecommunication 
Networks 

Insurance and 
finance 

Finance 

Power plant design optimisation 
Risk assessment for energy assets 
Site selection, planning and monitoring 
for renewable energy 

Environmental auditing 

Environmental resources management 

Impact studies and ESG 
Aquaculture operations optimisation 
Aquaculture site selection 
Illegal, unreported and unregulated 
fishing (IUU) control 
Catch optimisation 
Fish stock detection 
Fishing aggregating devices 
Fishing vessels navigation 
Biomass monitoring 
Deforestation/degradation monitoring 
Forest Inventory monitoring 
Forest vegetation health monitoring 
Illegal logging monitoring 
Automatic steering 
Forest asset management 
Forest exploitation certification 
Forest machinery guidance 
Environmental impact assessment 
of infrastructure 
Construction Operations 
Monitoring of impact of human 
activities on infrastructure 
Oracle Database Appliance (ODA) 
Support Monitoring 
Pipeline Monitoring 
Post-Construction Operations 
Infrastructure Site Selection and 
Planning 
Permitting 
Vulnerability Analysis 
Data Centre 
Digital Cellular Network (DCN) 
Professional Mobile Radio (PMR) 
Public Switched Telephone Network 
(PSTN) 
Satellite Communication (SATCOM)  
Small Cells 
Commodities trading 
Risk assessment 

160 

GNSS  EO  Synergy 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Segments 

Subsegments 

Insurance for natural 
disasters 

Environmental 
monitoring 
Inland waterways 

Maritime engineering 

Maritime and 
inland 
waterways 

Rail 

Road and 
automotive 

Urban 
development 
and cultural 
heritage 

Merchant vessels 

Ocean services 

Ports 

Recreational craft 
Vessel tracking 
Attractiveness 
enhancement 

Maintenance 
improvement 

Safety related 

Train driving 
optimisation 

Fleet management 
systems 

Liability 

Safety related 

Smart mobility 

Environmental 
Monitoring 

Applications 
Timing and synchronisation for finance 
Event footprint 
Index production 
Risk modelling 

Marine pollution monitoring 
Inland waterways navigation 
Marine surveying and mapping 
Dredging 
Collision avoidance (AIS) 
GNSS vessel engine management 
systems 
Merchant navigation 
Navigation through sea ice 
Ship route optimisation 
Metocean 
GNSS automated port operations 
Piloting assist at ports 
Port safety 
Port security 
Ports 
Recreational navigation 
Dark vessel monitoring 
Passenger information systems 
Public Transport – Tram and Light Rail 
Condition-based maintenance 
Infrastructure monitoring 
Predictive maintenance 
Enhanced Command & Control Systems 
Trackside personnel protection systems 
Driver Advisory Systems (DAS) 
Fleet management 
Bike sharing 
Public transport - buses 
Road fleet management 
Insurance telematics 
Road User Charging (RUC) 
Smart tachographs 
Connected and Automated Driving 
(CAD) 
Emergency assistance 
Congestion control 
Driving comfort 
Navigation – In-Vehicle Systems (IVS) 
& Personal Navigation Devices (PND) 
Air quality monitoring in urban 
environments 
Light pollution 
Thermal auditing 
Urban greening 

161 

GNSS  EO  Synergy 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Segments 

Subsegments 

Applications 

Smart Cities 
Operations 

Urban planning and 
monitoring 

Acting/Supporting 
Mission Payloads 

Deep Space 
Applications 

Navigation and 
Control (GNC) 
Subsystem  

Urban heat islands 
Smart streetlights 
Smart waste management 
Cultural heritage monitoring 
Informal dwellings 
Real estate 
Surveying and mapping of urban areas 
Urban modelling 
3D modelling, Digital Twins, Urban 
planning 
Technology Demonstration (TechD) 
Scientific & Operational Missions 
(SOM) 

Lunar Transfer Orbit (LTO) 
Attitude Determination (AD) 
Precise Orbit Determination (POD) 
Space Timing and Synchronisation (S-
T&S) 

Space 

GNSS  EO  Synergy 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

162 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
ANNEX  VII.  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  PROGRAMME’S  ACHIEVEMENTS  TOWARDS 
SDGS GOALS 

SDG  2  End  hunger,  achieve  food  security  and  improved  nutrition  and  promote 
sustainable agriculture 

The  information  by  Copernicus  CLMS  is  highly  valuable  for  agricultural  activities, 
monitoring  crop  conditions,  providing  early  warnings  on  failing  crops  and  predicting 
crop yields (food security). Given that agriculture is a vital economic activity worldwide, 
supporting  livelihoods  and  employment  for  many,  these  monitoring  activities  have  the 
potential to reduce hunger. 

SDG 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 

Copernicus  (CAMS)  provides  global  and  European  air  quality  forecasts  using  satellite 
observations, which are used by various entities for decision-making and informing the 
public.  The  Programme’s  components  Copernicus  and  Galileo,  are  crucial  for  the 
development of smart health services, which use in situ data and other technologies like 
5G  and  AI.  These  technologies  enable  new  applications  for  consumer  apps,  patient 
monitoring, and emergency response systems like eCall, which is estimated to save lives 
and reduce injuries in road accidents. 

SDG 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for 
all 

Copernicus  CLMS  provides  real-time  information  on  global  inland  water  bodies  and 
their characteristics, supporting  various applications  related to  food security, sanitation, 
energy, health, transport, biodiversity preservation, and natural risk management. Space 
technologies,  particularly  Copernicus  services,  are  also  crucial  for  optimizing  water 
processing  operations  and  providing  early  warning  systems  for  water  quality 
deterioration. These technologies assist water managers in dealing with water allocation, 
flood  management,  ecological  status,  and  industrial  water  use,  helping  them  adapt 
strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

SDG 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 

the  production  of  renewable  energies,  and  support 

Copernicus  and  Galileo  data  improve  the  resilience  and  efficiency  of  energy 
infrastructure,  enhance 
the 
implementation  of  smart  grids  for  improved  energy  efficiency  and  synchronization. 
Moreover,  Copernicus  provides  forecasts  of  desert  dust  and  other  aerosols  for  solar 
power  plants  and  climate  indicators  for  electricity  consumption  and  renewable  energy 
production  in  Europe,  aiding  in  investment  decision-making.  In  addition,  Galileo's 
authentication  services  contribute  to  a  more  resilient  infrastructure  with  better 
synchronization and power system monitoring. 

163 

 
SDG 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 
and SDG 11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and 
natural heritage. 

Galileo & EGNOS technologies improve city services and infrastructure, as positioning 
and  timing  information  is  essential  instance  e.g.,  for  operating  and  managing  public 
transportation,  power  supply,  connectivity,  or  waste  management.  Copernicus  provides 
crucial information for emergency response, urban planning, and monitoring of cultural 
heritage affected by natural disasters. Floods and earthquakes pose significant challenges 
to cities, and these technologies help in managing and mitigating these risks. 

SDG 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 

Copernicus  through  C3S  routinely  monitors  the  Earth’s  climate  and  its  evolution, 
providing  routine  access  to  key  indicators  on  several  Essential  Climate  Variables 
(temperature, sea-ice, CO2, etc.) and is therefore a powerful tool to monitor the success 
of the implementation of the Paris Agreement. These climate indicators will also support 
European adaptation and mitigation policies in a number of economic sectors. Galileo's 
SAR service helps reduce response times and save lives during extreme weather events 
and natural disasters. 

SDG  14  Conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources  for 
sustainable development 

Copernicus CMEMS uses satellite and in situ observations to monitor the Arctic Ocean 
supports  fisheries  control,  contributing  to  sustainable  fisheries  goals.  The  service 
provides data for monitoring sea-ice, temperature, and salinity changes, and uses Galileo 
for vessel positioning to combat illegal fishing practices. In the EU, about 9 000 fishing 
vessels  are  equipped  with  a  satellite-based  device  (VMS)  providing  data  to  fishery 
authorities to support enforcement efforts. 

SDG  15  Protect,  restore  and  promote  sustainable  use  of  terrestrial  ecosystems, 
sustainably  manage  forests,  combat  desertification,  and  halt  and  reverse  land 
degradation and halt biodiversity loss 

The  Programme’s  technologies,  in  particular  Copernicus’  CLMS  and  Galileo-enabled 
drones,  aid  in  understanding  and  protecting  wildlife  and  forests  through  detailed  land 
cover  and  land  use  information,  mapping  protected  areas,  and  supporting  biodiversity 
conservation  and  climate  modelling.  These  technologies  also  support  smart  farming, 
leading to decreased resource consumption while increasing production. 

164