Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0191

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Copernicus Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 /\* SWD/2013/0191 final \*/**

  

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council

establishing the Copernicus
Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010

PRELIMINARY
REMARK

In February 2013 a new version of Copernicus
Impact Assessment (IA), updating the version previously submitted to accompany
the document on the Future of the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES),
was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB). This
re-submission took into account the recent Council decision on the MFF and
hence focused on the optimum way to use the budget allocated to Copernicus. It
built on previous Cost-Benefit Analyses, incorporated the results of new studies
performed in 2012 and 2013 and considered policy options illustrated by the
relative merits of varying the apportionment of the given proposed budget to
the space, in situ and services components. The document that is now
circulating reflects the adjustments to the Impact Assessment that follow the
additional comments received by the IAB.

UNDERLYING PROBLEM TO
BE ADDRESSED BY GMES/COPERNICUS

–
Insufficient existing earth observation services

In the last 30 years, substantial R&D
efforts in the field of Earth Observation have been made by the EU, the
European Space Agency (ESA) and their respective Member States, with a view to
developing infrastructure and pre-operational Earth Observation services.
However, many of the existing Earth Observation services in Europe are
inadequate due to infrastructure gaps and lack of guarantees on their
availability in the long term. Copernicus is conceived to address this
weakness.

Economic investments at risk

To date, the total
investment made by the EU, ESA and its Member States accounts for more than €
3.000 Mio. This massive investment demands that Copernicus be sustained for
the long term, otherwise almost all past investments would be lost, with the
additional risk to disrupt national capacities to maintain their investment in
space earth observation activities as the EU dimension would no longer provide
a political and programmatic framework. It is thus very likely that the
situation would go back to fragmented and uncoordinated space activities with
remaining gaps, unsolved redundancies, and lack of economies of scale, as they
existed before the creation of GMES.

This risk of discontinuity represents a
major concern not only for end-users like public authorities, but also for
downstream service providers, as they are unlikely to invest significantly in
non-mature, risky markets and will face additional difficulties in raising
capital. The GIO (GMES Initial Operation) Regulation will be valid until the
end of 2013. In the meantime a new budget has been proposed by the European
Council for GMES, which is entering its operational phase from the start of
2014 under the new name of Copernicus. These changes require a new Regulation
which will propose decisions on, among other topics, the issues of programme
governance, of ownership of the infrastructure and of budget apportionment
between the different components. In addition, a Delegated Act on Copernicus
Data and Information Policy, to be applicable to the operational phase, has
been prepared and enshrines the general principle of full, open and
free-of-charge access to data and information produced by the Copernicus
programme. It is crucial that this ‘upgrade’ of the programme results in a
smooth transition to the new operational phase, especially from the perspective
of existing and potential users, with the highest level of continuity and the
efficient apportionment of the budget, as well as efficient governance choices.
The following paragraphs underline the reasons for which these choices are
especially significant, sensitive or urgent.

Innovation potential

It is a cornerstone of EU policy that
EU-funded Research & Development initiatives are translated into
innovation. Therefore the potential to unleash the innovation capacity linked
to Copernicus, which is mainly a service related innovation, is absolutely
vital for the pull-through of R&D investments into tangible benefits such
as the very real potential for significant economic growth and jobs, as
illustrated by the Impact Analysis model described below.

Autonomy

Copernicus gives the EU an
autonomous capacity without which it would have to rely on uncoordinated
sources from its Member States and on non-European (e.g. US) satellites and
sources of information, for the implementation of its policies.

Employment

Satellite applications systems are the main
source of income for the European space industry with Earth Observation being
one of the two most significant segments in terms of income, currently
accounting for around 30% of the total income for the European space industry.
Recent studies have analysed the impact of Copernicus data availability on
downstream markets development and have added the figures of downstream
sector employment to the figures of jobs development in the space related
(upstream) sectors.

Who are the most affected groups?

The Copernicus user community is large
and diverse, spanning from international stakeholders to European citizens. The
most affected groups include:

–
At European level, Commission services. Many DGs
are already using or are planning to use Copernicus products (ECHO, ENV, AGRI, MOVE,
MARE, REGIO and CLIMA). EU agencies are also important users and actors
(EEA, EMSA, FRONTEX, EUSC), as well as the European External Action Service
(EEAS), intergovernmental European agencies (ECMWF, EUMETSAT, EDA, ESA), and
European programmes, associations and networks (EMEP, EUMETNET, Eurogeographic,
Eurogeosurvey, OSPAR, HELCOM).

–
At international level, Copernicus is
developing relationships with GEO partners, UN agencies and international
research programmes;

–
National Authorities such as Ministries of Environment, Transport, Interior,
Agriculture, Energy, Fisheries, Land Management, Maritime Affairs, and Public
Local Authorities, but also specific entities such as Civil Protection
Authorities and Risk Control Agencies.

–
A wide range of users in the industry
framework (space manufacturing sector and related
operations, service provision, data production and dissemination sector,
development of value added services in the downstream sector), and ultimately
European citizens who will use the final products.

OBJECTIVES

General
objectives

The over-arching objectives of defining,
financing, establishing and operating a Copernicus, long-term operational
programme of activities as described in the proposed Regulation on establishing
the European Earth Observation Programme (Copernicus) are to actively address
the problems described above.

· The Copernicus services aim to enable public policy makers in
particular to:

·
prepare national, European, and international legislation,
for instance in the field of environmental matters, including climate change,

· monitor the implementation of this legislation

· access comprehensive and accurate information concerning safety and
security matters (e.g. for border surveillance, civil protection activities,
etc).

Operational policy objectives

The shifting from a research phase to an
operational phase requires the definition of the budget apportionment and the
re-thinking of the governance structure in the most cost-effective way. The
reasons are manifold: research projects are smaller in terms of budget and
objectives, limited in duration and conceived as prototypes of what the whole
Copernicus structure could look like; moreover they are often been managed
jointly by different services of the Commission and by the specific endorsed
partners. The chosen budget apportionment follows the cost-benefits analyses
summarised in the IA; the governance framework has to ensure a good project
management and implementation, facing the limited size of the Copernicus Unit
and exploiting non-EC already existing capacities.

Relevance to
other EU policies

Copernicus will deliver information to
policy makers, public authorities, businesses and European citizens. Hence
Copernicus has the potential to support all relevant Union policies,
instruments and actions, where understanding the way environmental changes
affect our planet is paramount. Many examples exist of the Copernicus
contribution to EU policies in such areas as (detailed in the IA Report): International
cooperation policies, Transport policy, Environmental policies, Humanitarian
aid, Energy, Regional policy, Climate change policy, Internal affairs and
security, Agriculture and Marine related policies.

POLICY OPTIONS

The Impact Assessment analyses two
different sets of options: options on budget apportionment and
options on governance.

A. Options on budget apportionment

Given the amount of funding decided by
the European Council for the Copernicus programme, the three scenarios
(options) described in this section examine the effects of varying the amount
apportioned to the three main components: space infrastructure, contribution to
the in situ infrastructure and the financing of the Services. The
analysis emphasises the trade-off between investments in space infrastructure
and services, while keeping the expenditure on the in situ stable, given
the inherent nature of this component (primarily reliant on national
investments). In order to make the analysis comparable with previous studies
the impacts are accumulated until 2030 with a notional assumption (consistent
with those studies) for a funding level beyond the 2014-2020 MFF.

A.1
Methodology

The main analysis performed in 2013 in
support of this Impact Assessment builds on two previous studies (referenced
and summarised in the IA). In order to refine the previous analyses, the 2013
study examined the extent to which benefits scale in relation to the level of apportionment
of funds between the Space and Service components. This allows a comparison of
multiple scenarios that all share the same budgetary envelope.

A.2 Description of options

The Impact Analysis considered three options/scenarios
as follows.

I - Service Delivery Pull in which a relatively large share of the available budget is used to
finance the provision of services whilst still allowing for a level of funding
for the Space component in line with previous studies. This scenario tries to
combine the minimum investment in space infrastructure with the maximum
possible and practical allocation to services.

II – Intermediate in which the investment in the Space component is increased,
while the Services component is reduced proportionally.

III - Technology Driven which foresees the highest possible
investment in the Space component while the Services component would be reduced
to the bare minimum.

A.3 Analysis
of impacts

The budgetary apportionment assumptions, the financial impacts and
the impact on employment, for each scenario, are presented in the tables below:

|| || I - Service Delivery Pull || II - Intermediate || III - Technology Driven || Total

|| || Space || In Situ || Services || Space || In Situ || Services || Space || In Situ || Services || € M

TOTAL  (2014-2030) || € Mio || 400 || 22 || 119 || 422 || 22 || 97 || 438 || 22 || 81 || 541

% || 74% || 4% || 22% || 78% || 4% || 18% || 81% || 4% || 15% ||

Budgetary
apportionment by scenario (Annual Averages 2014 -2030)

|| || || I - Service Delivery Pull || II - Intermediate || III - Technology Driven

2014-2020 || Cumulative Benefits || € Bn || 6,3 || 6,1 || 5,9

2021-2030 || Cumulative Benefits || 23,0 || 22,1 || 20,8

TOTAL (2014-2030) || Cumulative Benefits || 29,4 || 28,2 || 26,7

Downstream Impact in 2030 || 1,03 || 0,98 || 0,95

Integrated contribution to European GDP || % || 0,164% || 0,157% || 0,149%

Integrated BCR || : || 3,30 || 3,17 || 3,01

Integrated
Impact Simulation By Scenario (Undiscounted)

|| || I - Service Delivery Pull || II - Intermediate || III - Technology Driven

|| || DE || IE || T || DE || IE || T || DE || IE || T

|| || Number of jobs created / maintained by 2030

TOTAL (2014-2030) || US || 2.030 || 5.270 || 7.300 || 2.140 || 5.550 || 7.690 || 2.220 || 5.770 || 7.980

MS || 710 || 1.830 || 2.540 || 680 || 1.750 || 2.420 || 650 || 1.690 || 2.340

DS || 9.170 || 29.340 || 38.510 || 8.710 || 27.850 || 36.550 || 8.460 || 27.070 || 35.530

T || 11.900 || 36.440 || 48.330 || 11.510 || 35.150 || 46.650 || 11.330 || 34.520 || 45.840

Employment
Impact by Scenario (Number of jobs created / maintained by 2030)

(US=Upstream, MS=Midstream, DS=Downstream, DE=Direct
Employment, IE=Indirect Employment)
A.4 Potential for dynamic increase on impacts

In order to complement the above analysis,
the so-called FeliX model, a system dynamics model and benefit simulator, which
takes into account the complex relationships between natural and socio-economic
systems has been developed. The model forecasts substantially higher benefits (~8
times, in the long term) than the ‘static’ benefit projections of the present
study. This is due to the enlarged scope of the FeliX approach and its broad
assumptions of underlying infrastructure (namely GEOSS, to which Copernicus is
expected to constitute the EU’s major contribution). The comparison with the
FeliX output serves to highlight the strong potential for higher-order
magnitudes of benefits when Copernicus is viewed as part of a broader system of
systems.

A.5 Conclusion

The above Cost-Benefit Analysis shows that
within the budget foreseen by the European Council, Scenario I (Service
Delivery Pull) would have the highest benefits and therefore would be most
cost-effective scenario.

B. Options on governance

· The objective for governance is to assure that all aspects ranging
from policy supervision to technical implementation are clearly fulfilled by
appropriately mandated organisations:

–
The policy supervision and overall
coordination consists in defining the policy objectives, the high level
orientations and content of the programme, the associated budget requirements,
the main organisational and architecture principles, and the overall guidelines
for programme implementation.

–
Management: the
managing authority follows the political guidelines and is in charge of the
management of budgets for the implementation of tasks. It prepares and
implements the work programmes and supervises their implementation. It is
responsible for the preparation of administrative arrangements to the entities
who will be in charge of the technical implementation of the tasks;

–
Technical coordination: is usually carried out by the management authority, but in some
cases, same tasks may be delegated to another body, e.g. preparation of
contracts and SLAs, monitoring of implementation, consolidation of user and
service requirements.

–
The technical implementation is conducted
by the operating entities in charge of specific tasks (construction of
satellites, delivery of services).

· For all possible options the European Commission should remain
politically responsible. The responsibility for the technical implementation of
the services must, on the one hand, take into account the invaluable
experiences gained during the GMES Initial Operations (and earlier) phases
while, on the other hand, pay due respect to the principles of open
competition. The latter concern, which will probably be addressed via a
competitive process, should nevertheless take account of the open competition
that underpinned the awarding of FP7 funded pre-cursor services as well as
ensuring that principles of open competition are embraced by the coordinating
entities of the services through the selection of partners.

The
following table summarises the analysis of some programme governance options.

Option || Description || Comments

Commission in charge of overall coordination and management || The Commission would remain in charge of the political supervision and the overall coordination of the programme, including the management of tasks and budget. The technical coordination of space infrastructure would be outsourced to competent bodies as will the responsibility for the technical implementation of the services. || This option would preserve the current set up. With the outsourcing of tasks, the impact on the EU resources would be limited. The Commission would remain involved in the direct management of the programme, including the budget implementation, while concentrating on its core business, namely the political supervision of the programme.

Delegation of the management to an existing European Agency || The Commission would remain in charge of the overall coordination and political supervision of the programme but not of its management. Activities, such as the budget implementation, would be delegated to an external Agency. The Commission would remain in charge of relationships with partners and users and would play a political role of supervision and coordination. The daily management would be entrusted to an Agency more suited to this role with more specialized staff, under the control of the Commission. || This option is in full respect with the separation principle between supervision and management. Moreover, operational efficiencies could be created if synergies with other programmes can be realised. The delegating tasks to an Agency would still have an impact on EU resources.

Delegation of the coordination and management to the European Space Agency || The Commission would no longer be in charge of the programme. The overall coordination, including budget management and implementation of tasks, would be delegated to ESA, subject to the appropriate amendment of the constituent acts or to functional arrangements. The Commission would no longer be in charge of the political supervision of the programme and of relationships with partners and users. || The Commission's political control over the programme would diminish as would its influence in defining the objectives and requirements. The implementation of and access to Copernicus infrastructure and services may be reduced to a few MS willing to continue their investments. It would risk becoming a technology-driven programme rather than a user-driven one. It could require amendment to the ESA Convention, which would be difficult and lengthy. It could risk that the services and in situ components may receive a lower level of focus.

Delegation of the management to a new Agency || A new Agency would be set up for the programme management of GMES/Copernicus and the implementation of the corresponding budget. This Agency could be an EU Agency or an international one. The Commission would play a political role of supervision/coordination. The daily management would be entrusted to the Agency but under the control of the Commission. || This option is likely to make the institutional landscape more complex. Synergies would not be maximised, with potential risks for the implementation of the programme. Creating a new entity could prove complex and long winded.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Ex-post evaluation of GMES Preparatory
Action and Interim evaluation of GMES Initial Operations have already taken
place. Their results are reported in the IA document and have been taken into
account to guide the new policy initiative. On-going monitoring of Copernicus
will take place through the User Forum. Future evaluations will focus on the
achievement of the operational objectives and the impact of operational
services on the Earth observation industry in Europe as well as on the user
take-up and downstream exploitation. A table showing possible indicators is
included in the Impact Assessment document.

[Top](#document1)