Europe’s Earth Observation, Satellite Navigation and Communications Missions and Services for the benefit of the Arctic Inventory of current and future capabilities, their synergies and societal benefits

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

2021

EUR 30629 EN

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

Contact information Name: Karen Boniface Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate E: Space, Security and Migration Email: [email protected] Tel.: +39-0332-785295

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

JRC121206

EUR 30629 EN

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-32079-1 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/270136

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

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

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

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

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 9 Purpose of the study ...... 10 Study structure ...... 10 2 Policy context ...... 12 2.1 Arctic Policy: current and future perspectives ...... 12 2.1.1 EU Arctic Policy ...... 12 2.1.2 International legal framework in the Arctic ...... 12 2.1.3 The future of EU Arctic role and strategy ...... 14 2.2 EU Space Policy ...... 15 2.2.1 Budget repartition and main goals ...... 16 2.2.2 Galileo and EGNOS (EGNSS) ...... 17 2.2.3 Copernicus ...... 17 2.2.4 EU GovSatCom ...... 19 2.2.5 Space and Situational Awareness (SSA) ...... 19 3 Users’ needs ...... 20 3.1 Science users ...... 20 3.2 Operational users ...... 24 3.2.1 Resources ...... 24 3.2.2 Navigation and operations ...... 24 3.2.3 Communications ...... 25 3.2.4 Disaster and emergency management ...... 26 3.2.5 Security ...... 26 3.3 Indigenous and local community users ...... 27 4 Inventory of current and future capabilities in EO ...... 29 4.1 Copernicus ...... 29 4.1.1 Copernicus structure ...... 29 4.1.2 Copernicus Sentinel missions ...... 29 4.1.3 Copernicus contributing missions ...... 35 4.1.4 Overview of user-required functions versus Sentinels ...... 36 4.1.5 Copernicus Services ...... 38 4.2 Other EO satellite missions...... 49 4.2.1 ESA Earth Explorer missions ...... 49 4.2.2 Other European satellite missions ...... 50 4.2.3 EUMETSAT satellite missions and facilities ...... 51

i 4.2.4 International Missions ...... 52 4.3 Other EO Capabilities ...... 54 4.3.1 Services and Platforms ...... 54 4.3.2 Relevant R&D Actions ...... 57 4.4 Future missions ...... 59 4.4.1 Copernicus High Priority Candidate and Expansion Missions ...... 59 4.4.2 Commercial missions ...... 62 4.4.3 Future Member States Missions ...... 62 4.4.4 Future EUMETSAT satellites ...... 62 4.4.5 International Missions ...... 62 5 Inventory of current and future capabilities in Satellite navigation ...... 65 5.1 Galileo ...... 65 5.2 Galileo Services ...... 67 5.2.1 Open Service (OS) ...... 67 5.2.2 Search and Rescue (SaR) ...... 68 5.2.3 Emergency Warning Service (EWS) ...... 71 5.3 EGNOS inventory service ...... 72 5.3.1 EGNOS Services ...... 73 6 Arctic SatCom challenges, needs and objectives ...... 80 6.1 EU SatCom ...... 81 Commercial Systems ...... 82 Governmental Systems ...... 83 Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) satellites – Global Xpress ...... 83 Using LEO satellite mega constellations for GovSatCom ...... 84 6.2 ARGOS ...... 84 6.2.1 Better coverage in the Polar Regions...... 85 6.2.2 ARGOS-4 & KINEIS Nanosatellites Constellation: the future of Argos ...... 86 6.3 Terrestrial and Satellite-based Broadband Internet Systems ...... 87 7 Arctic SSA challenges, needs and objectives ...... 98 8 Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and satellite communications in the Arctic ...... 99 8.1 First European Arctic Reanalysis products ...... 99 8.2 GNSS Radio Occultation ...... 100 8.2.1 European missions ...... 102 8.2.2 International missions ...... 103 8.3 GNSS Reflectometry (GNSS-R) ...... 103 8.4 Automatic Identification System (AIS) ...... 104

ii 8.4.1 European missions ...... 105 8.4.2 International Missions ...... 105 8.4.3 Combined SAR-AIS missions ...... 107 8.5 Navigation / Precise Orbit Determination ...... 107 8.6 Internet Of Things (IoT) Missions ...... 107 8.6.1 STEAM – Ships’s Sulfur Trails Emissions Aerial Measurements ...... 107 8.6.2 Argos and Kinéis (CLS/CNES) ...... 107 9 Societal Impact Assessment ...... 109 9.1 Methodology ...... 109 9.1.1 Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic ...... 109 9.1.2 Information collection ...... 111 9.2 Case study selection ...... 111 9.3 Ship routing and navigation ...... 115 9.4 Search and Rescue ...... 119 9.5 Societal benefits ...... 124 10 Conclusions ...... 130 11 Main recommendations ...... 132 References ...... 134 List of abbreviations and definitions ...... 140 List of figures ...... 143 List of tables ...... 147 Annexes ...... 148 Annex 1. Galileo Open Service additional analysis ...... 148 Annex 2. Galileo SaR Service elements and Return Link evolution ...... 149 Annex 3. List of experts and questions used to perform the societal impact assessment ...... 151

iii

iv Acknowledgements The authors thank David Arthurs from the global organization Polarview, and Shridhar Jawak from the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS) in Norway for the exchange of views and their valuable contributions to this study. We are grateful to Solène Routaboul, Stephan Lauriol, and Mariana Childress from CLS France, for providing the latest updates and modernisation plans on the Argos system. We are also grateful to Axel Von Engeln from Eumetsat for providing comments on the GNSS-Radio Occultation section, Estel Cardellach from the IEEC (Spain) and Adriano Camps from UPC (Spain) for the updates provided on the GNSS-Reflectometry topic. We thank our JRC colleagues Inès Joubert-Boitat and Jesus San-Miguel for the useful material provided on the Copernicus Emergency Service, Matteo Sgammini for the navigation section and Pieter Beck for the Arctic vegetation aspects. We are also thankful to Xavier Maufroid, Claude Cowe and Antonio Rolla, from DEFIS, for sharing information on the status and planned evolution of the Galileo services. Last but not least, we are grateful to these other colleagues from DG DEFIS for their constructive comments and remarks through the completion of the study: Tanja Zegers, Gilles Lequeux, Leo Guilfoyle, Eric Guyader and Ola Nordbeck. Finally, we appreciate the thorough and thoughtful recommendations provided by Christina Corbane.

Authors Karen Boniface1, Ciro Gioia1, Luca Pozzoli2, Thomas Diehl3, Srdjan Dobricic2, Joaquim Fortuny Guasch1, Harm Greidanus1, Tomas Kliment4, Jan Kucera1, Greet Janssens-Maenhout3, Pierre Soille5, Peter Strobl3 and Julian Wilson2 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate E, Space, Security and Migration, Italy 2 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate C, Energy, Transport and Climate, Italy 3 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D, Sustainable Resources, Italy 4 Arhs Developments, Luxembourg 5 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate I, Competences, Italy

5 Abstract

Both the Arctic and Space are important policy topics for the EU, with recently defined strategies and programs. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has recently completed a study upon the request of the Directorate Defense Industry and Space (DEFIS) aiming at identifying the synergies across the four domains of the EU Space Programme. This study surveys the EU’s space-based capabilities, related to Earth observation (EO), navigation, communication and space monitoring, and highlights their current and potential future relevance for users in the Arctic. The user-needs across the four main domains are provided, covering the maritime sector, disaster risk management, monitoring essential climate variables and regulatory compliance, search and rescue services, communications and satellite service disruption. Users cover both science and operational users but also indigenous and local community users. Challenges are then discussed related to the different domains of applications. Then, the study provides a large inventory of the current and future (i.e. next decade) European capacities in the Arctic. Finally, it discusses promising synergistic uses of space assets and applications, and presents a brief societal impact assessment. These synergies are expected to be key enablers of new services that will have a high societal impact in the region, which could be developed in a more cost-efficient and rapid manner. Similarly, synergies will also help exploiting operational services that are already deployed in the Arctic. The study is based on discussions with various international experts from Academy to Industry from several areas, and on an extensive literature review covering high-quality sources. The study aims at reinforcing the efficiency of existing and future capabilities for the Arctic users and to improve the connectivity.

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

Domain-related assessment The Earth observation and global satellite navigation programmes of the EU, Copernicus and Galileo, cover the region and provide an initial contribution to key environmental, safety and security needs. They are an implementation of the 2016 EU Space Strategy. The new EU Space Programme for the 2021-2027 budget will widen the scope of the space activities with the addition of the Satellite Communications and the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) domains. This creates opportunities for the exploitation of synergies to capitalise even more on the entire programme. The importance of the four domains of the EU space programme: the Earth Observation, the Satellite Navigation, the Satellite Communications, the Space Situational Awareness is discussed in the Arctic context. Earth Observation (EO). Copernicus programme satellites provide large amounts of useful data over the Arctic, which is favoured with respect to other regions on Earth as most of the EO satellite orbits converge at the poles, increasing coverage there. The Copernicus Services transform satellite data into products like maps of vegetation, sea ice, air quality, shipping presence, and disaster risk and impact. These serve Arctic users, yet are sometimes falling short in specific information content, spatial resolution and timeliness. Satellite Navigation (SatNav). The Galileo programme provides its services globally, covering the Arctic. The services comprise the Open Service, the Search and Rescue (SaR) service, and soon the Emergency Warning service. The Galileo Open Service caters to the positioning, navigation and timing needs of Arctic air, sea and land transport. The SaR Service under the Cospas-Sarsat system improves localisation of distress signals, which is important in the Arctic where SaR capacities are limited. The Galileo SaR service provides further enhancements for Cospas-Sarsat beacons thanks to a return link transmission, which broadcasts a confirmation of receipt to the sender of a distress message. In addition to Galileo, the EU has its own satellite based augmentation system, EGNOS that improves navigation accuracy (EGNOS Open Service) and provides integrity information (EGNOS Safety of Life). This service supports a great number of applications in the transport sector and renders safety-critical operations safer. Both services rely on geostationary satellites that are not visible above 72° North. Nevertheless, EGNOS is already used for GNSS-based landing procedures at a number of Arctic airfields below that latitude. Integrity information above 72° North remains a challenge for EGNOS, but this gap can be filled by a new service: Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM), jointly developed by the EU and the US, which will start its initial service provision in 2025. Satellite Communications (SatCom). These are essential in the Arctic for long-range communications as surface links are lacking. However, they are currently inadequate for broadband SatCom, as this is mostly offered via geostationary satellites that are not visible at high latitudes. Some commercial operators currently offer low-bandwidth communications from lower orbit satellites covering the poles. In the near future, the commercial offerings of broadband SatCom promise to increase, but the suppliers will mostly be U.S. companies. The EU is setting up the GovSatCom initiative initiative with a ‘pull and share’ access scheme providing governmental SatCom services. The EU’s governmental SatCom capacity needed in the Arctic is expected to be an important driver influencing the future development of the EU GovSatCom initiative. As an alternative to SatCom, HF radio communications may be used but only at low bandwidths.

7 Space Situational Awareness (SSA). Monitoring of space weather is very important in the Arctic, where it influences the ionosphere, which in turn affects satellite radio navigation and communications signals as well as HF communications. Space weather can also seriously degrade the functioning of satellites and sensitive ground infrastructure, and pose a risk to air passengers. All of these effects are stronger in the Arctic. Main findings The study identified synergies between the four components of the EU space programme. The monitoring of space weather to warn against ionospheric disturbances affecting satellite radio navigation and communications systems has just been mentioned. Satellite navigation is used pervasively with EO, as all EO data must be geo-located. Furthermore, observations of the reflection and occultation of satellite navigation signals have been found to provide means of measuring ocean wind, sea ice cover, ice thickness, atmospheric temperature and humidity profiles, as well as ionospheric disturbances. Several cross-applications have been identified and have growth potential in maritime surveillance – of high interest for fisheries control, law enforcement, environmental control, search & rescue and maritime security. For example, ship positions determined by satellites receiving ships’ AIS messages can be corroborated with EO images to detect ‘dark’ ships (i.e. ships not sending AIS messages) which may be suspected of illegal fishing. The best synergy is obtained when the AIS receiver is co-located on the EO satellite to eliminate time delays between the two types of observation. Therefore, strong synergies arise from integrating SatCom with EO operations. EO data are collected in space and transmitted to Earth for processing and downstream activities. The resulting information then needs to be sent to the operational users in some remote Arctic location, e.g. on a ship. For users in rapidly changing circumstances (sea ice, ships nearby), this needs to be done in near-real-time; a capability that can only be provided by SatCom. Concerning societal benefits, this study used a methodology endorsed by the Arctic Council's Sustaining Arctic Observation Networks (SAON) initiative to quantify benefits for the use cases of sea ice monitoring and Search & Rescue operations. A quantitative analysis of societal impact indicators based on key objectives and societal benefit areas shows the value and high impact of satellite and observing systems on society. Since space capabilities are built on partnerships and projects covering science, operations, and Research and Development (R&D) activities, with a clear increase from commercial partners’ involvement. Proper policy instruments (e.g. standardisation) are needed to facilitate synergies and cooperation between the public and private sectors, to maximise the benefits for Arctic users. Today’s satellites produce vast amounts of data, and that will only grow in future. Extraction of the information required for scientific and operational users requires significant computing power and reliable communications. In addition, the desiderata are often predictions; so full exploitation of the data and their synergies require predictive models on timescales ranging from hours or days (e.g. ship routing) to decades (climate).

Finally, the study provides few recommendations and policy orientations summarized below:  Maximize the exploitation of data acquired by the increasing number of commercial missions facilitating data access policy.  Harmonize the existing services. For example, every GNSS provide Search and Rescue capability that should be harmonized for the users within the beacons systems.  Develop dedicated branch with existing Copernicus services focusing on the Arctic region.  Provide educational material to the Artic Users to facilitate the use of complex EO products and data platforms in general The societal impact aspect of the study give examples where synergies of the different space element progamme will increase not only Arctic people benefit but global population. Examples are the sea level rise from the glaciers melting in Greenland, or weather extremes affecting the societies at the mid- latitudes. The study used a structured approach with reproducible methodologies (VTA and IL) which should be extended in the future for a full understanding of the use of satellite products, their benefits on society and their quantification in economic terms, in the Arctic and at global scale.

8 1 Introduction In recent years, the environmental, social, economic and strategic importance of the Arctic has increased. Much of that area is sea and it gathers together over four million people including over 40 different indigenous communities. As a consequence of global climate change, the Arctic ice is melting. This opens the Arctic to exploitation of its resources, which include not only fish, oil, gas, minerals and rare earths but also a natural environment that attracts tourism and provides shorter global shipping routes. These natural and economic changes are strongly impacting the Arctic. Ecosystems are changing, affecting distributions of fauna and flora. The increase in temperatures in the northern high latitudes region have contributed to plant growth during summer (Myneni et al. 1997). More people are present: in addition to the indigenous population, workers (in extraction, mining, transport) and cruise tourists come and go. Shipping, both local (supply, fishing) and global (transit) is increasing. On land, melting permafrost and coastal erosion undermine infrastructures. Indigenous ways of life are uprooted by changes in sea ice, snow, animal distributions, as well as by globalisation. With heightened geopolitical interest, military activities are increasing. As global warming is expected to continue for decades, we may expect these trends to continue. Measurement and long-term monitoring of changing Arctic conditions, activities and processes are needed. Areas for attention include: bathymetric mapping; monitoring of changing land surfaces and coastlines; monitoring of human activities on land and at sea; measurement and prediction of weather, sea, ice and snow conditions; and the establishment of adequate transport and communications connections. Arctic marine transport is expected to grow, with Arctic shipping routes becoming attractive as alternatives to the main shipping lanes via Suez and Panama (Figure 2). In the future, sea ice decline may even make the Central Arctic Ocean route navigable as ice-free conditions occur more frequently. Increased shipping, including cruise tourism, increases oil spill risks and introduces new challenges such as the need for Arctic marine infrastructure for search and rescue and emergency response, and the need for accurate and reliable navigation to deal with sea ice and icebergs. The newly accessible wealth of the Arctic, in combination with the extraterritorial nature of most of the Arctic seas and their position right between the US and Russia lend a geopolitical consequence to the region. This has led to military build-up (notably by Russia) and an interest from new players (like China). Parts of the Arctic are of strategic importance to European defence. The presence of ice and permafrost makes the region particularly sensitive to warming induced by (non- local) anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbated by the (local) deposition of the atmospheric pollutant black carbon on sea ice, land ice and snow. This increases the absorption of solar radiation, which contributes to additional warming. The melting of ice causes additional radiation absorption by the darker ocean and land surfaces. The increase in temperatures in the northern high latitudes region has contributed to plant growth during summer (Myneni et al. 1997). Snow albedo is related to tree cover and influences reflectance (albedo) feedbacks in coupled climate models (Loranty et al. 2014). Fires are becoming common in the boreal zone (Mack et al. 2011). In addition to the direct emission of Carbon, fires induce changes in the ecosystem structure affecting the albedo and energy balances of landscapes, including permafrost. The increasing warming thaws permafrost soils, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Together these processes form a strong positive feedback loop accelerating global warming. As melting Arctic land ice causes global sea levels to rise, the Arctic acts as a fulcrum in the global climate change process. In addition to the territorial, geopolitical and global environmental complexities, the Arctic is also a unique local environment, home to several fragile ecosystems. The preservation of biodiversity and the viability of ecosystems in the Arctic is a global challenge. Besides the aspects mentioned previously, the Arctic is the home of diverse local communities that are facing drastic changes. A transversal element that needs to be addressed through appropriate policies is the connectivity for the Arctic peoples. How can the EU support Arctic users in the future? How important is the digital infrastructure that exists today and what is missing to address the needs of the Indigenous population for e-learning, telemedicine and developing critical digital infrastructure in the region? The eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States) have set up the Arctic Council as an intergovernmental forum to support better governance in

9 this international domain. Three of the eight are EU states. Besides these eight full Members, the Arctic Council also has 38 Observers (countries and organisations), but the EU itself does not (yet) have this status even though it shares close historical, economical and geographical links with the Arctic region. Nordic countries represent a large part of the EU territory (25%) and the Nordic region is growing in economic importance (currently 10% of EU GDP). Considering all of the above, there is a strong need to reinforce a proper EU policy. Hence, given the important role of the Arctic as a regulator for the planet's climate, the EU is duty-bound to safeguard the Arctic environment and strengthen its ecosystem resilience. Monitoring ECV (Essential Climate Variables) and the understanding and monitoring of the Arctic environment are essential. The Arctic is an integral object of EU policy and confers to the EU a natural and important role to play in the region. EU activities and decisions are also having an impact on the region’s sustainable development (European Commission 2016a). The relevance of the Arctic region for the EU was recently further highlighted in a strategic note of July 2019 summarizing the EU and other international actors’ positions (European Commission 2019b). The large scope of the EU space program for the 2021-2027 budget is a major opportunity to address the various challenges affecting the Arctic, with the addition of the Satellite Communications and the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) domains besides Galileo and Copernicus. This creates opportunities for the exploitation of synergies and for the benefit of the Arctic (Boniface et al. 2020) Purpose of the study Given the sparse nature of the ground services, space-based services and infrastructures can provide substantial benefits and can help to address many of these issues. Making an optimal use of the space- based capabilities requires having an up to date view of the current and future missions and services in Earth Observation (EO), satellite navigation, satellite communications, and SSA. This report is written from the point of view of the European context and therefore a full insight into the benefits brought by the EU’s operational programmes on EO and satellite navigation (i.e. Copernicus and Galileo) is given. The study addresses the following three main objectives:  Identification of the user needs in the Arctic for space-enabled services and in particular their synergies, in the four domains of the EU Space Programme: EO, satellite navigation, satellite communications and SSA, within a 10 years’ time frame.  Provision of an inventory of the current and planned future space services and infrastructures in Europe relevant to the Arctic.  Identification of the current and future synergies both at the service and infrastructure levels, focusing on those in the EU Space Programme. Study structure After this brief introduction, the document presents the Policy background from the Arctic Policy and EU Space policy sides in Section 2. Section 3 presents the User’s needs starting with the science users, followed by the operational users, and finally the indigenous and local community users. Chapter 4 provides the inventory of current and future capabilities in EO including the Sentinel missions, Copernicus contributing missions and Copernicus Services, ESA Earth explorer missions and other European, Eumetsat and international satellite missions of interest for the Arctic region. Other EO capabilities are presented including various services, platforms, R&D actions and commercial missions. In Chapter 5 SatNav capabilities are detailed for Galileo and EGNOS services. Chapter 6 provides the SatCom capabilities including both intermittent connectivity capacity and state of the art of broadband SatCom. Chapter 7 summarises the SSA capability in the Arctic. Chapter 8 established the on-going and promising synergistic uses of EO, navigation and SatCom in the Arctic before a societal impact assessment is presented in Chapter 9, illustrated by two case studies, one on ship routing and navigation and one on search and rescue. Finally, Chapters 10 and 11 summarise the conclusions and main recommendations of the study.

10

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

11 2 Policy context

2.1 Arctic Policy: current and future perspectives The Arctic hosts territories of eight states, three of which are in the EU, as well as High Seas beyond national jurisdiction. Many more countries (including EU states) have an affirmed interest in the Arctic. This indicates the importance of an international approach and of a role for the EU. Indeed, in 2016 the EU set out an Arctic Policy aiming to balance economic growth with sustainability, environmental protection and social responsibility, taking a multilateral and international approach. Even though the primary responsibility for Arctic policy remains with the Arctic states themselves, three EU Member States – Denmark, Finland and Sweden – and some half a million EU citizens are involved in the Arctic. In this context, Arctic is an integral object of EU internal policy and confers to EU a natural and important role to play in the region. Furthermore, the Arctic is also important in the context of EU strategic autonomy. For example, Greenland has significant reserves of rare-earths which are crucial in advanced technologies promoted in the EU. Rare earths are an indispensable part, for example, of wind turbines which generate renewable energy.

2.1.1 EU Arctic Policy Following several initiatives (Commission of the European communities 2008; European Commission and High Representative of the Union 2012), in 2016 a Joint Communication for ‘An integrated European Policy for the Arctic’ (European Commission 2016a) confirmed the three priority areas of the EU in the Arctic: — Climate Change and Safeguarding the Arctic Environment; — Sustainable Development in and around the Arctic with a focus on sustainable innovation, investment, space technology and maritime safety; — International Cooperation on Arctic Issues. The actions undertaken by the EU within the three priority areas will be emphasized through research, science and innovation. These actions will be in line with other relevant global policies such as the United Nation’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations 2019). EU is a major contributor to Arctic research devoted to Arctic observation and monitoring programmes (see all H2020 projects on Arctic in 4.3.2.2). Research efforts are also being supported by the EU through the EU-PolarNet initiative (22 research institutions across 17 European countries). The project supports an EU-wide consortium of experts and optimises the use of infrastructure for polar research connecting science with society. Use of space assets by European polar operators are reported in EU- PolarNet Consortium 2017. The consortium is engaged in close cooperation with International partners to prioritise science. EU is working on climate action, environmental research and sustainable development, while cooperating with Arctic states, institutions and local communities (European Commission 2016c). Considering individual EU countries, Finland like other EU countries is pushing to trigger regulatory frameworks on environmental sustainability, and is highlighting in particular the importance of digital and physical connectivity. Denmark emphasizes the need to maintain peace, security and protection of the environment and reinforce international cooperation. UK has its own policy towards the Arctic (Polar Regions Department. Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2018) like the Scottish Government (Scottish Government 2019). Germany published its Arctic policy guidelines (German Government 2019). In 2016, France published its national roadmap for the Arctic (République Francaise 2016).

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

12 2.1.2.1 UNCLOS With much of the Arctic being sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a backbone to the international legal framework. UNCLOS, effective since 1994, defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The 150 parties who have ratified UNCLOS include the EU and all circumpolar Arctic states, except the U.S. who nevertheless tend to adhere to it. UNCLOS introduces concepts like Territorial Waters, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf and the associated rights and obligations.

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

Table 1: Working groups of the Arctic Council.

Working Group Acronym Thematic Objectives

Arctic Contaminants Action Program ACAP Environment, Reduce emissions and ecosystems, pollutants

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment AMAP Environment Tackle pollution, Program adverse effects on climate change

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna CAFF Biodiversity Ensure sustainability of the living resources

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and EPPR Environment Protect form accidental Response release of pollutants or radionuclides

Protection of the Arctic Marine PAME Marine Protection, sustainable Environment use of marine resources

Sustainable Development Working Group SDWG Human dimension Improving environmental, economic and social conditions of indigenous peoples

During the Chairmanship of Finland (2017-2019) a dedicated Task Force on Improved Connectivity in the Arctic has also been established. In order to help achieve sustainable development and to empower communities, improvements to connectivity are needed. The human dimension of connectivity taking into account the needs of the different user groups was assessed by the Task Force. Further cooperation with the Arctic Economic Council (AEC) and the telecommunications industry were encouraged to solve everyday challenges through adequate infrastructures. Key findings and recommendations performed by the Task Force were published in Arctic 2019. In addition, an Expert group is also operating under the Finnish presidency in support of implementation of the Framework for Action on Black Carbon and Methane (EGBCM).

13

To date, the Arctic Council has produced tangible results, among which three agreements legally binding the Arctic member states on issues ranging from search and rescue cooperation (2011), to marine oil pollution preparedness and response (2013), and scientific cooperation (2017). The EU itself does not hold a formal observer status. Nevertheless, it participates to the Arctic Council’s work as a de facto observer, upon invitation.

2.1.2.3 Russia Russia considers the Northern Sea Route as an opportunity for national and regional developments. Two thirds of Russia’s oil and gas is expected in its Exclusive Economic Zone off its Arctic coasts (Devyatkin 2018; Claes and Moe 2014). Hydrocarbon extraction in the Arctic is expensive, complex and not without environmental hazards, therefore increasing the need of international cooperation. Western sanctions on Russia have complicated cooperation with Western companies. This partly explains why Moscow is creating regulatory and administrative legal framework for foreign navigation. For example, foreign ships are required (CNBC 2019) to pay for weather and ice reports, for Russian pilots, and for Russian icebreaking services while they are forbidden from transporting oil and gas extracted in Russia along the route (The Moscow Times 2018).

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

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

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

2.1.2.7 Other countries Norway and Iceland emphasize the need to take economic advantage of their natural resources (energy, land and marine resources) while protecting the environment, climate and biodiversity. India is also engaged in the Arctic region with the supply of liquefied natural gas (Ministry of External Affairs 2013) and is involved in Scientific Research in Svalbard (Norway).

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

14 The drastic changes affecting the Arctic with the acceleration of climate change, and the Chinese plans for development and investments in the Arctic for logistics and infrastructure projects, require a stronger coordination of European Arctic policies and a broader cooperation among all Member States than ever. The EU has a central role to play ensuring both a sustainable economic development while protecting the environment. This is of particular relevance in the context of natural Arctic’s resources that are likely to be crucial in a near future for the global and European economy. The EU’s Arctic strategy will be reflected across the EU’s institutional set-up and within its programmes, projects, funding and relevant legislative actions. In particular, for the Space component, a cross-cutting strategy is now needed more than ever. The Space Policy and the infrastructure for space already present in the EU’s Arctic regions should be further enhanced to facilitate adequate digital solutions for the Arctic environment. For example, the expansion of existing satellite programmes to cover the Arctic region’s specific needs is considered. Future investments will be done in expanding sectors such as transport, logistics and telecommunications infrastructure. This include the Trans-European Transport Network to promote better accessibility to European and global markets, as well as investments in ICT and infrastructure to connect the EU’s Arctic regions to European and global digital networks as reported by the Commission’s strategy on Connectivity for a European Gigabit Society1. Funding mechanisms with the coming Horizon Europe programme should reinforce Arctic research funding and will be coherently increased to achieve better actions on climate change and other challenges. The EU active role was emphasized recently on 29 November 2019, in the Council conclusions on “Space solutions for a sustainable Arctic”2. In particular, it was stressed that space solutions play a crucial role for the priority areas of the EU integrated Arctic policy. This applies to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change and safeguarding the Arctic environment, to the need for ensuring a sustainable development in and around the Arctic and at international level to solve Arctic issues. As mentioned in the strategy note released by the European Commission's European Political Strategy Centre (European Commission 2019b), the EU should continue to be a pro-active actor regarding the damaging effects of Black Carbon: using existing mechanisms to reduce it, providing instruments for cross border cooperation between Russia and the EU. The EU should contribute to a constructive approach with respect to military security in the Arctic by supporting cooperation with coast guard authorities and cooperation in the area of maritime safety. The EU should also initiate a dialogue with China and other Asian countries to address common interests such as climate change and connectivity, like is done in the EU-China Blue Partnership for the Oceans (European Commission 2018d). This partnership is of greatest importance in the mitigation and adaption to climate change impacts notably in the Arctic Ocean. The EU should intensify its dialogue with the US to find common interests in environmental preservation and sustainable economic activities in the Arctic.

2.2 EU Space Policy The 2016 Space Strategy for Europe (European Commission 2016e) confirmed the Union's commitment to an ambitious space policy in Europe to (1) maximise the benefits of space for Europe’ society and economy; (2) foster a globally competitive and innovative European space sector; (3) reinforce Europe’s autonomy in accessing and using space in a secure and safe environment; (4) strengthen Europe’s role as a global actor and promote international cooperation. The EU Space programme proposed in June 2018 for the 2021-2027 Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) aims at ensuring investment continuity in EU space activities encouraging scientific/technical progress and supporting the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the European Space industry and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and innovative businesses (European Commission 2018e).

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

15 The space sector employs over 231 000 people and its value is estimated at 53-62 billion € in 2017, the second largest in the world. A third of the world’s satellites are made in Europe. The objectives of the new EU space programme can be summarised as follows: — Guarantee the continuity and evolution of the most advanced satellite positioning systems Galileo/EGNOS and EO Copernicus systems, develop new security initiatives on Governmental Satellite Communication (GovSatCom) and SSA component. — Support a strong and innovative space industry improving access to risk financing tools for emerging business models and to testing and processing facilities, and promote certification and standardisation. — Maintain the EU’s autonomous, reliable and cost-effective access to space (e.g. optimization of launch services, innovative technology for reusable launchers). — Create a unified and simplified system of governance with a single Regulation for a simpler cooperation between all institutional actors.

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

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

Galileo and EGNOS Copernicus GovSatCom SSA

Function Global and Regional Free and open EO data Secure Space hazards satellite navigation for land, atmosphere, governmental monitoring systems sea, climate change, satellite emergency communications management and security

Budget3 €8.0 billion €4.8 billion ––– €0.4 billion –––

Goals Achieve technological Maintain leadership in Develop Further develop independence with respect environmental GovSatCom space to other global navigation monitoring, emergency through pooling of surveillance satellite systems management, and resources from and tracking of border and maritime Member States space objects Mobilise the economic and security to avoid strategic advantages of Improve collisions having European control Develop new government action over the continuous observation capabilities to increase citizen’s Address other availability of satellite security space hazards navigation services Develop data (e.g. space dissemination weather, Facilitate the development infrastructure with asteroids) of new products and commercial applications services based on satellite signals Generate related technological benefits for research, development, and innovation

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

16 2.2.2 Galileo and EGNOS (EGNSS) Galileo is the main part of the European Global Satellite Navigation System (GNSS) that provides accurate positioning and timing information. Galileo aims to ensure Europe’s strategic autonomy in satellite navigation (European Union 2016). It consists of a space segment of 30 satellites (currently 26 in orbit), the Full Operational Capability (FOC) being planned in 2020. Galileo is operational and initiated the provision of services in December 2016. Galileo has a global and continuous coverage and it is available in the Arctic. Three services that are of particular value in the Arctic include the Open Service, the Search and Rescue service with its unique feature of the return link message, and the Emergency Warning Service, which are introduced in section 5. The second element of the EGNSS Programme is the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay system EGNOS. It has been developed by ESA and EUROCONTROL on behalf of the European Commission (European GNSS Agency 2016). It has been operational since 2013 to augment GPS. The most relevant EGNOS services for the Arctic region are the EGNOS Open Service (OS) and the EGNOS Safety of Life (SoL), which are presented in section 5.3. Under EGNOS V2.4.2 (deployed in 2019) the Safety of Life service (SoL) is provided up to 72o N. The EGNOS V3 second generation will augment both GPS and Galileo (European GNSS Agency 2016).

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

Figure 2: Galileo and EGNOS programmes governance

2.2.3 Copernicus Copernicus is the European Union’s EO programme. It entered its operational phase with the launch of Sentinel-1A in 2014. It aims at developing European information services for the benefits of citizens and the environment through the collection of space-based data, complemented by in-situ data if needed. The Commission as programme manager owns the infrastructure and data rights on behalf of the Union. The Programme has two main goals: to provide European policy decision makers with critical geo- information and to promote growth and competitiveness in the EU. Copernicus has a Free, Full and Open (FFO) data policy, with a few exceptions for security-related applications. The development of the Space Component, including the launch and operation of the Sentinels and management of the Ground Segment, has been delegated to the European Space Agency (ESA). The European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) coordinates the provision of space data and operational support to the Climate Change, Marine Environment and Atmosphere Monitoring Services.

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

Figure 3: Coordination and management of the Copernicus programme

2.2.3.1 Copernicus Space activities in the Polar Regions Copernicus is already operational. However, it remains important to ensure the continuity of the infrastructures and services already in place while adapting to the changing user needs, including the new interests in the Arctic region, and the emergence of private actors in space. In addition, this adaptation needs to be pragmatic with a rapid response since socio-political developments evolve quickly in the Arctic region. Three stakeholder activities about the monitoring over the Polar Regions are summarized in the following timeline:

Copernicus and Polar Regions industry Polar and Snow Cover workshop applications workshop Raise awareness Gather requirements for the concerning the defined Second Generation Copernicus products and services for Space component the industry and Gather Service requirements stakeholders

2016 2017 2018 2019

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

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

18

2.2.4 EU GovSatCom EU GovSatCom is an initiative that aims to ensure the availability of reliable, secured and cost-effective satellite communications which are particularly crucial when ground infrastructure is inexistent (i.e. maritime, air or remote areas), unreliable, disrupted or devastated (disasters, conflicts). A high level of security and of protection is required against interference, interception, intrusion and associated cyber- security risks for the transmission of critical information. The EU GovSatCom is defined in an institutional context to respond to European security needs of governmental users of satellite communications. The initiative also supports the competitiveness of the European SatCom industry. Current technological developments that are particularly relevant for the GovSatCom initiative include:  New services including the Internet of Things (IoT)  Optical space communications and Very High Throughput Satellites (VHTS)  5G next generation of mobile networks integrating the ground and space communications infrastructures and services  Current deployment of LEO mega-constellations

2.2.5 Space and Situational Awareness (SSA) The SSA is composed by three segments. Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) of objects in Earth orbit. This includes the tracking of active and inactive satellites, the discarded launchers stages and debris. Space Weather (SWE). This segment consists in monitoring the conditions at the Sun, in the solar wind, in the Earth’s magnetosphere, the ionosphere and the thermosphere in order to estimate the possible risks for space-borne and ground-based infrastructure. Near-Earth Objects (NEO). This segment consists in detecting and recognizing natural objects in space that can potentially impact the Earth and cause damage.

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

19 3 Users’ needs The users’ needs are discussed here in the context of space-based services. Satellite-based EO is a powerful tool in the polar context. Because of the extent, remoteness, and isolation of these regions, remote sensing is often the only cost effective and technically feasible means of obtaining information. The satellite sensors provide a unique source of information for monitoring and analysing various geophysical parameters related to the environment, safety, operations planning, and for sustainable development goals. Sea Ice Concentration (SIC) is a parameter of high importance for operational navigation in sea-ice infested waters and for climate services. It is a core measurement underpinning the EU Arctic Policy. SIC is required at a high spatial resolution (< 5 km) and with sub-daily coverage of the Arctic regions with improved spectral and radiometric fidelity compared to existing satellite capability. Critical information on sea ice characteristics and iceberg detection derived from satellite imagery is used routinely to help protect vessels in the Arctic from ice collision. In the following, high-level user needs are discussed for the three user groups of science users, operational users and local/indigenous users.

3.1 Science users The most important goal of science users is environmental impact and climate change assessment. EO in the Arctic region is crucial to monitor and assess the effects of climate change, the adaptation needs in the region and with a larger extent the global feedback effects of Arctic changes. The EO encompasses the monitoring of Ocean, Atmosphere and Land variables. Satellite EO data are used in conjunction with a number of sophisticated models to monitor sea ice cover, glacier runoff, snow cover, snow melt, iceberg drift, river ice and lake ice. An assessment of the resilience against the effects of climate change requires a continuous monitoring of essential indicators such as permafrost variability, which is key to understand impacts on terrain stability, infrastructure damage, coastal erosion, the carbon cycle and vegetation development. Some of these directly impact on operational users (next section). The thawing of permafrost is increasing the risk of damage to roads and other infrastructure. In addition with climate change the permafrost variability is expected to increase significantly (Hjort et al. 2018) and is monitored within the ESA-CCI (Climate Change Initiative) permafrost. EO is also used for environmental protection to help monitor regulatory compliance for global CO2 emissions (e.g., Paris Agreement), fisheries, biodiversity, natural resources extraction, air pollution and trace gases. For ice sheets, glaciers and permafrost regions there is an urgent need for monitoring the surface elevation and its temporal variability. Permafrost warming and thawing is observed in many locations, with an average warming of about 0.4°C per decade according to recent observations. This large-scale permafrost degradation may provoke feedbacks such as activating the soil carbon pool (Lawrence and Slater 2005). Additional complex feedback mechanisms caused by a decrease in surface albedo imply a wide range of climatic, hydrologic, ecologic, and geomorphic changes in the Arctic. With the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C released in October 2019 (Pörtner et al. 2019), it has become even more apparent that limiting global warming as stated in the Paris Agreement is a necessity. Arctic winter temperatures are already 2.5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures leading to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere with severe reductions in snow cover and Arctic sea ice extent and thickness.

20

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

In addition, the impact of local emissions on Arctic tropospheric composition is not only limited to increasing the levels of air pollution but is also tied to climate (Ødemark et al. 2012; Dalsøren et al. 2013). It is well known that climate change is proceeding much faster in the Arctic than on global average (Stocker et al. 2014; A. Simmons et al. 2016). Observational records and forecasts both show a general warming in the Arctic. This warming is roughly twice as high as the global average, and there will be a need for understanding and management of the related change processes. The temperature increase is particularly pronounced during the winter season. Record temperature changes have been observed for Svalbard, where the winter temperatures have increased by about 10°C over the last 60 years. In addition the economic activity is increasing in the region making reliable regional reanalysis even more needed for the Arctic region (A. J. Simmons and Poli 2015). Since the observing system relies on remote sensing in the Arctic, the quality of satellite data is essential for the quality of the derived analysis products.

21

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

Complementary measurements of ground displacements can be used as proxies for changes in the state of permafrost, an Essential Climate Variable (ECV) which cannot be monitored directly from space. Improving our knowledge of changes in permafrost is relevant for both climate and emergency services. A new proposed Copernicus service element, the pan-European Ground Motion Service (EGMS) is a first step in this direction and will cover terrain deformations due to permafrost thaw in alpine environments. An extension of this service to cover permafrost in high latitude lowland Arctic-Boreal regions, located mostly outside of Europe, would be desirable. The main challenges regarding EO are linked with the particular weather and environmental conditions prevalent in the Arctic region. The polar winter and frequent cloudiness require having microwave sensors. The time interval allowing to measure soil moisture is also reduced to a brief period in the summer to avoid misinterpretation with frozen ground. The needs in EO have been gathered by themes with the corresponding scientific activities and sectoral applications in Table 3. The geophysical themes relevant for the Arctic have been extracted from the PEG report (Duchossois et al. 2018). The categories were devised by the experts in order to be aligned with the different elements of the geosystem (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and cryosphere division).

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

Themes (9) Scientific activities Sectoral H2020 research Applications projects

Atmosphere Assess the rate of climate Weather forecasting APPLICATE, change Climate change Energy BLUE ACTION, and Weather Increase knowledge of energy, Transport (land, air, INTAROS, water budgets to forecast local sea) and global weather KEPLER Maritime operations Trace gases and greenhouse NUNATARYUK (navigation, fishing, gases quantification, ship offshore, transport, emissions tourism) Weather and climate

Ocean Sea level anomaly Weather forecasts ARICE, INTAROS, Ocean state and Sea Surface Temperature Maritime operations coastal zone (SST) (navigation, fishing, KEPLER change offshore, transport, Ocean waves, currents tourism)

Surface Fresh Assess movement of fresh Hydrology INTAROS, Water water Natural and technical NUNATARYUK Understanding hazards Biogeochemical systems Climate

Land Surface Research on structural and Energy INTAROS, and Vegetation functional characteristics of Water management EU-INTERACT land use systems Surface and Use Food KEPLER change Impacts of human activities on land Territory management and hazards mitigation Global carbon cycle monitoring Forest management Global change monitoring Food management, Biodiversity changes water and energy supplies

Permafrost and Assess the loss of permafrost Infrastructure NUNATARYUK Soils on infrastructure, climate and management: ARCSAR, people transport, construction INTAROS Understand and quantify the Weather and climate C02 and methane release EU-INTERACT

Sea Ice Assess the changes in sea ice Ship routing, ARCSAR, extent and mass balance Navigation Iceberg ARICE, Evaluate coastal stability Search and Rescue Ice shelves ICE-ARC, Weather and climate INTAROS, Infrastructure KEPLER (offshore, oil spill

23 monitoring, coastal stability)

Ice sheets Evaluate ice sheets Water management, INTAROS, Energy (hydropower) KEPLER Weather and climate

Glaciers and Ice Glaciers evolution on sea level Water management, INTAROS Caps rise Energy (hydropower) Weather and climate

Snow Monitor and assess snow Hydrology INTAROS, cover changes and its role in Water resources KEPLER, climatology, hydrology, ecology and socio-economics NUNATARYUK

3.2 Operational users

3.2.1 Resources The exploration of new natural resources is a user application, which is carried out on land as well as on the sea, and requires PNT (Positioning, Navigation and Timing) information. Oil and gas industry requires a higher telecommunications capacity in order to support Integrated Operations (IO) which consists in integrating data across disciplines and business domains. In particular information and communication technology are used to make smarter decisions on production. These operations include the need of broadband connections for sharing of data and video surveillance of platform.

3.2.2 Navigation and operations Galileo and EGNOS receivers are embedded in many of the items we use in our daily lives including mobile phones, smart watch and automobiles. Several applications, ranging from the provision of a reference time source for synchronizing networks to guidance of vehicles on sea, land or in the air, rely on PNT information. A survey was conducted in the framework of the project ARKKI, the results of the survey were reported in (Leppälä et al. 2019). Although the study is based on a very reduced number of interviews, it reported that the most significant challenges for the navigation in the Arctic are uneven coverage of positioning, untimely weather information, and telecommunication issues. Transportation is becoming more and more important and is expected to keep growing over the next decades in the Arctic region. As a consequence, several user requirements need to be fulfilled to cope with the resulting increase in the traffic.

3.2.2.1 Maritime transport Arctic shipping is increasing, consequently an adequate Arctic shipping infrastructure such as ports, information and surveillance systems on safe navigation, and emergency response will be more and more needed. Users in the maritime sector and operators of offshore platforms require a timely provision of weather forecasts and other high-end EO products such as sea ice maps and iceberg positions, which are needed to ensure safer maritime operations. Safety of new routes needs to be assured. International cooperation will be needed in establishing standards of marine environmental safety, crew training and education taking into account the existing technological aids needed and the missing ones. Currently almost all boats, commercial as well as recreational, have on board at least one GNSS receiver; the devices enhance navigation on all bodies of water, from oceanic trip to coastal trip, especially in inclement weather. Also in the maritime sector, GNSS solutions may need to be augmented, specifically for integrity (Reid et al. 2015). One of the most common solutions is the adoption of Satellite Based Augmentation System, in Europe EGNOS. Wide area differential GNSS are utilized

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

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

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

3.2.3 Communications

3.2.3.1 Maritime transport The maritime sector can be divided into two groups of users: the ones related to vessels and the other ones related to (quasi-) offshore installations such as oil platforms and drilling rigs. The maritime sector started to undergo digitalisation having the introduction of Automatic Identification System (AIS) for safety concerns. The system is a broadcast communication system allowing reporting the position, course, speed in order to avoid collisions. According to the International Marine Organisation (IMO) users need to be equipped with AIS for class A (SOLAS vessel, mandatory), while a lower cost type AIS transceiver was specified for class B vessels (voluntary) (ITU 2007). The Polar code covers the full range of shipping-related matters relevant to navigation in waters surrounding the two poles. This includes the ship design, construction and equipment; operational and training concerns; search and rescue; and, equally important, the protection of the unique environment and eco-systems of the Polar Regions. The functional requirements from the Polar Code (entry into force 1 January 2017) for ship communication are summarized: - Two-way voice and/or data communications ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore shall be available at all points along the intended operating routes.

25 - Suitable means of communications shall be provided where escort and convoy operations are expected. - Means for two-way on-scene and SaR coordination communications for search and rescue purposes including aeronautical frequencies shall be provided. - Appropriate communication equipment to enable tele medical assistance in polar areas shall be provided. Maritime broadband connections are used for vessel operations, internet and email access for crew. Maritime broadband data rate requirements are expected to reach 2.5 Mbit/s towards 2020 (Euroconsult, MARINTEK, SINTEF ICT, Telenor 2011). In summary for all sectors and according to the requirements, the Arctic satellite communications system is limited to broadcasting, broadband, backhaul, distress and safety services. The broadcasting requirements in the maritime sector are comparable to land based requirements.

3.2.3.2 Air transport For the aviation sector, two main communication needs have been identified: - the cockpit communications that are part of the Air Traffic Management (ATM) communications and are related to flight operations. - the cabin communications that are linked to in-flight entertainment applications, passenger communications including on board wireless internet service and that require broadband service. For in-flight entertainment and to satisfy all users a broadcasting service with a range of 20-30 channels is also desirable. According to the different needs the arctic broadband requirement for aeronautical domain is in the range of 100 Mbit/s to 150 Mbit/s.

3.2.4 Disaster and emergency management Disaster risk management requires EO satellites capability for rapid mapping of specific areas in case of emergency warnings (e.g., fire, volcanic eruption...). That is also needed to assess the impact of the disaster and the precise extent of the damages. Disaster risk management strongly relies on the navigation solution; in order to coordinate the operations, the entity in charge of the coordination of the rescue team needs to locate precisely spatially and temporally the events and actions in the disaster area. Distress and safety require adequate communication services to issue distress calls and get safety information through local radio and TV stations. A very high availability and reliability of these communication services is required and for all-weather conditions.

3.2.5 Security Security issues in the Arctic may pertain to crossing of land and sea borders related to customs or immigration, activities near borders, military build-up, entry into closed fishing zones (which may depend on the season), transhipments at sea, unregistered exploration or exploitation, shipping of illegal or embargoed goods, or any other infringement of laws and regulations. A number of security issues that occur elsewhere in the world like piracy or conflict and its impacts are luckily not present in the Arctic. Space-based sensors can be used to monitor land and sea for events like the above. In general, however, very high resolution is needed in order to establish that some target or activity indeed poses a security threat. In addition, such targets and activities are often transient, meaning that monitoring with a low revisit rate is often not good enough. Today, not many EO constellations have the required high resolution and high revisit rate, so security applications are daunting for EO. Still, EO can provide very helpful information when used in the right way together with other means. A transversal need that is relevant for land, maritime and air users is the exploitation of the geofencing concept: a vehicle is programmed to remain within a fixed geographical area and alerts the fleet operator whenever the vehicle violates the prescribed fence. Conversely, an alert is issued if an object is detected

26 entering a closed area. This activity can be very relevant for the Arctic region where restricted areas are present (European Council 2018; European Commission 2018a). Security threats typically need a fast reaction time for intervention. Therefore, real-time communication links are needed, which in the Arctic means satellite communication. As long as the EO data are not processed in-orbit, wide-band SatCom is needed for downlinking. The Arctic has a good share of ground receiving stations, so this is possible; it is a matter of prioritising between data downloads. After downloading to the ground station, a good architecture for the data processing and distribution is needed in order to be able to send derived actionable information around to the operational responders in real- time. Operations against the more serious security threats such as cross-border crime or (para-) military actions need navigation and communication capabilities that are robust against interference.

3.3 Indigenous and local community users Arctic people and communities’ needs need to be evaluated to address existing gaps (EU-PolarNet Consortium 2018). Connectivity is one transversal domain which has numerous individual and social benefits. It supports education, social equality, enhances democratic participation. Sufficient connectivity is needed to ensure Arctic businesses to develop their potential without limitation. The local community users’ needs are increasing with more reliable telephony and broadband access needed, which are essential for information and development purposes. In the next decade, the Arctic region is expected to have a growth in human activities and therefore an increasing demand for communication solutions. Moreover, the geographic specificities of the Arctic region which is composed mainly of ice and water make the terrestrial infrastructure almost absent. As a result, space infrastructure for communications is even more needed to cope with the increasing needs in the Arctic. Communities in the Arctic are located in remote areas and terrestrial infrastructure outside of communities is limited. Land based broadband services in the Arctic are mostly for small communities. The harsh climate contributes to a short construction season for deploying the physical infrastructure necessary for additional broadband technologies. The large amount of snow and ice complicates the maintenance as well (Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group 2016). The user’s needs do not only come from indigenous communities but also from workers on platforms, at remote mining sites or on fishing ships who may not be indigenous but are locals, and whose numbers are expected to grow. Another significant growth area in the Arctic is cruise ship tourism. There will be cruise ships with thousands of passengers who are expecting luxury standards including access to broadband internet on their mobile phones. This is expected to be a strong driver of commercial broadband solutions in the Arctic. Another category of needs that impact directly Arctic residents is related to the food and water security. According to the recent IPCC summary for policymakers on ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (Pörtner et al. 2019) food availability and water quality evaluation is needed. Particularly melting glaciers and thawing permafrost that release mercury need to be taken into account. To give an idea of the minimum requirements for broadcasting service a service offering between 20 to 30 channels available from cable, satellite and terrestrial system (Løge 2013) should be available to be aligned with the rest of the world. Given the actual distribution and density of the local communities this means having a total backhaul capacity in the order of 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s. The following sections 4 to 7 provide details on the four components of the EU space programme.

Who are the Arctic users and what are their needs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 4 Inventory of current and future capabilities in EO The inventory of the EO capabilities will start with Copernicus because – together with Galileo – it is the EU’s own program. Copernicus comprises satellites, services and (non-space) infrastructure. After that, other current EO satellites will be listed, other EO-based services and other infrastructure in separate sub-chapters. Finally, future developments for EO will be listed.

4.1 Copernicus

4.1.1 Copernicus structure Copernicus is the EU’s flagship program for EO4. It is designed to operationally provide data and services to end users, based on EO (satellite) measurements complemented with non-space data. Copernicus recognises a satellites component, an in-situ component and a services component. In the Copernicus logic, the satellites component consists of satellites and their supporting ground stations. (In this report, the latter are discussed under infrastructure.) The satellites consist of two groups: Copernicus’ own satellites the Sentinels of which there are six, and contributing (third party) missions of which there are about 30. The Copernicus programme offers six operational thematic services in the fields of atmosphere monitoring, marine environment monitoring, land monitoring, climate change, emergency management and security. All provide products relevant for the Arctic. The focus of the Copernicus services for the Polar Regions is put more particularly on continuous monitoring. As mentioned in the Copernicus Market Report (European Commission 2019), the key Copernicus products relevant for the Arctic region belong to the maritime surveillance including vessel and oil spills detection and support to pollution response. Copernicus is managed and funded by the European Commission, and the space component is implemented and co-funded by ESA. The data and information produced by Copernicus are free and openly available, for use by public and private users. The program is shaped by user requirements.

4.1.2 Copernicus Sentinel missions The EU’s own satellites under the Copernicus program are the Sentinels, numbered one through six. The Sentinels carry a range of technologies, such as radar and multi-spectral imaging instruments for land, ocean and atmospheric monitoring. They are listed in the table and further discussed below. Note that polar-orbiting satellites have their orbits converge at the poles, so their revisit times at high latitudes are much shorter than over the equator, favouring Arctic monitoring. In addition, the Sentinel- 1 and -2 satellites cannot collect data all the time due to capacity restrictions, so they have to select areas; Sentinel-1 always monitors the Arctic and Sentinel-2 always monitors part of it.

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

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

Mission Sensor(s) Resolution- Repeat Status Key Features - Revisit Time (Nov 2019)

Sentinel-1 C-band SAR (5a-) 21-50m 2 satellites in orbit Polar-orbiting 6 day repeat All-weather 3 day revisit at Day and night radar equator, <1 day in imaging the Arctic

Sentinel-2 Optical Multi- 10-60 m 2 satellites in orbit Polar-orbiting spectral 5 days repeat 13 spectral bands in optical and SWIR 5 day revisit at equator, <1 day in High resolution the Arctic imaging

Sentinel-3 Optical multi- 300-1200 m 2 satellites in orbit For surface colour, spectral (OLCI) surface + Infrared multi- <1-2 day revisit at temperature and equator, <0.5 day in spectral (b) surface height (SLSTR) + the Arctic Radar altimeter + Microwave radiometer

Sentinel-4 Similar to S-5 Launch late 2021 Geostationary, so not useful for Arctic

Sentinel-5p Imaging 7-68km 1 satellite in orbit For atmospheric spectrometer trace gasses UV-Visible- <1 day revisit in the SWIR Arctic

Sentinel-5 High-resolution 7.5-50km 1st Launch in 2022 Payload for spectrometer atmosphere UV-Visible- <1 day revisit in the chemistry on SWIR Arctic MetOp 2nd Generation

Sentinel-6 Altimeter 10 day revisit 1st Launch in Nov Radar altimeter to 2020 measure global sea surface height

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

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

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

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

Figure 7: Sentinel-1 revisit and coverage frequency6.

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

31

Figure 8: Sentinel-1 polarisation and observation mode7.

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

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

32

Figure 10: Number of Sentinel 1 acquisitions computed over the full period (2014-2019) with a 250 km grid using the extra wide (EW, left) and interferometric wide (IW, right) modes. The Sentinel-2 mission aims at monitoring variability in land surface conditions using a multispectral high-resolution sensor. It comprises a constellation of two polar-orbiting satellites that are identical, operating simultaneously; phased at 180° to each other, in a sun-synchronous orbit at a mean altitude of 786 km. Its images have a wide swath width of 290 km. The geographical coverage limits are between latitudes 56° south and 84° north. Within that band, the mission systematically acquires data over land and coastal areas, with a coverage and revisit as illustrated in the figures below. Sentinel-2 allows mapping of land cover, vegetation, soil and water cover, inland waterways and coastal areas. It can also deliver information for emergency and crisis response services. It can detect targets at sea and monitor infrastructures on land for security applications.

Figure 11: Coverage and revisit of Sentinel-28.

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

33

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

Sentinel-3 provides high-accuracy optical, radar and altimetry data for marine and land services. The Sentinel-3 carries four main sensors: the Ocean and Land Colour Instrument (OLCI); the Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer (SLSTR); the SAR Radar Altimeter (SRAL); and the Microwave Radiometer (MWR). They measure sea surface topography, sea and land surface temperature and ocean and land surface colour, and provide various parameters critical for the Arctic region such as sea ice extent, sea ice thickness and albedo. Due to the orbit constraint, data contains an 1860 km-wide “hole” at northernmost and southernmost latitudes. Therefore, Arctic sea ice monitoring is reduced at the northernmost latitudes. Figure 13 and Figure 14 depict the mean revisit time obtained with OLCI and SLSTR instruments on board Sentinel-3.

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

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

34

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

Sentinel-4 and -5 are not satellites but are payloads carried on other satellites. Both are still to be launched, in late 2021 and late 2022 respectively10. Sentinel-5 will provide data for atmospheric composition monitoring from polar orbit (carried on EUMETSAT's Metop Second Generation satellite) whereas Sentinel-4 will provide similar data but on a geostationary orbit (carried on EUMETSAT's Meteosat Third Generation satellite). The payloads are a Ultra-Violet, Visible and Near-Infrared Sounder (UVNS). Being geostationary, Sentinel-4’s use over the Arctic will be limited. Sentinel-5 will provide accurate measurements of key atmospheric constituents such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde, and aerosol properties. Sentinel-5P (Precursor) bridges the gap between Envisat (Sciamachy data in particular) and Sentinel- 5 for which the first launch is expected in 2022. The global data are stored on board and downlinked to the Svalbard station. The satellite payload on-board Sentinel-5P is TROPOMI (Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument) which is grating spectrometers covering the range UV-VIS-NIR-SWIR (270-2385 nm) with a global coverage every day (and more frequently in the Arctic). It can map ozone, formaldehyde, methane, NO2, SO2, CO and aerosols. Sentinel-6 will provide radar altimetry data to measure global sea-surface height, primarily for operational oceanography and for climate studies. Its secondary mission is radio occultation, an essential input for climate monitoring and weather forecasting. There will be two satellites. The first launch is planned in Nov 2020.

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

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

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

35 TerraSAR-X operates with TanDEM-X acquiring high-resolution and wide-area radar images independent of the weather conditions. The two satellites feature a unique geometric accuracy that is unmatched by any other spaceborne sensor. TerraSAR-X data has a wide range of applications (e.g. land use / land cover mapping, topographic mapping, forest monitoring, emergency response monitoring, environmental monitoring, maritime surveillance, sea ice cover and oil spill detection) with a high resolution (1 m to 16 m depending on operation mode). Besides the SAR payload, it has the IGOR (Integrated GPS Occultation Receiver) which allows producing temperature/humidity sounding with highest vertical resolution for space weather applications. The Terrasar-X new generation is already planned by DLR and will have a significant contribution to temperature and humidity soundings.

4.1.3.3 Italy COSMO-SkyMed (CSM) is a series of four satellites for SAR observation in X-band capable of operating in all visibility conditions at high resolution and in real time. The overall objective of this program is global EO and the relevant data exploitation for the needs of the military community as well as for the civil (institutional, commercial) community. One important aspect of the mission is the quick provision of imagery for disaster and emergency management due to its daily global coverage capability. CSM is the largest investment in Space for EO by Italy since 2011. Since 2009, CSM is a Copernicus Contributing Mission.

4.1.3.4 Spain PAZ is an X-band SAR spacecraft based on the TerraSAR-X platform, to serve the security and the defence needs. PAZ includes a polarimetric Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Radio- Occultation (RO) payload. The PAZ mission was initially designed to carry a SAR as primary and sole payload, and included an IGOR+ advanced GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver and corresponding antennas for precise orbit determination. The design and software of this GPS receiver allows the tracking of occulting signals, that is: signals transmitted by GPS satellites setting below the horizon of the Earth (or rising above it). The mission is operated by IEEC/ICE-CSIC, Hisdesat and MCINN. Deimos-1 provides medium resolution with very wide swath imagery. The mission is fully owned and operated by the Spanish company Deimos Imaging and was launched in 2009. The multispectral imager (SLIM6) allows to get high resolution land observation, ice shelf crack or for disaster monitoring. Deimos-2 is a very high resolution multispectral optical satellite (75 cm pan-sharpened) that allows land observation monitoring. Deimos-2 operates with a network of four ground stations.

4.1.3.5 Canada RadarSat-2 collects global geospatial SAR imagery in C-band through cloud cover and darkness, with more than 50 imaging modes, multiple polarimetric options and massive data collection capacity. Radarsat-2 images the Earth at spatial resolutions ranging from 3 to 100 meters. It is a jointly-funded satellite mission of CSA (Canadian Space Agency) and MDA (MacDonald Dettwiler Associates Ltd. of Richmond, BC). The POD (Precise Orbit Determination) software in combination with the onboard GPS receivers permits accurate real time orbit information. The key features of the mission for the Arctic are the monitoring of the Arctic sea lines and territories, maritime surveillance, the provision of seasonal variations of glacier ice flow, and sea ice monitoring. RadarSat-2 is followed up by RCM, Radarsat Constellation Mission, that is also a C-band SAR relevant for the Arctic, but is not yet a Copernicus contributing mission – see section 4.2.4.1.

4.1.4 Overview of user-required functions versus Sentinels Table 5 links functionalities (“functions”) required by users in the Arctic (the lines) with Copernicus Sentinel EO satellites that provide information relevant to those (the columns). The function refers to the measuring, detecting or mapping (as applicable) of the mentioned object or phenomenon. No separate entries are made for the capacity to measure changes. E.g., damage assessment is no separate function in the table but falls under “buildings” as changes in that.

36 The functions are a level more detailed than application domains such as “climate change”, “maritime transport”, “offshore exploration”, “border security”, “emergency management”, etc. Each of these application domains will have (somewhat different) requirements in a number of the listed functions. Satellites are grouped in one column if they are sufficiently similar. The level of aggregation of the functions in the table still does not show whether an actual user requirement is satisfied. Additional parameters such as the spatial scales, temporal availability, update rate, potential integration in prediction services, etc., are not analysed here. Therefore, the table only gives indications about which EO satellites may be used for which Arctic user-required functions.

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

Satellite

1 2 3 5/5p 6 Function - - - - -

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

37 Sea level, sea surface height + + +++ +++ Currents, circulation and fronts ++ + +++ +++ Bathymetry + + Sea ice cover and edge +++ ++ ++ Sea ice concentration +++ Sea ice type ++ + Sea ice thickness ++ Sea ice ridges + ++ Sea ice surface temperature +++ Icebergs ++ ++ Offshore structures ++ ++ Fisheries, fishing ships ++ ++ Merchant ships ++ ++ Small boats and other marine targets + + Marine oil pollution +++ + + Sea border crossing activities + + Atmosphere Wind(b) Temperature ++ Precipitation Atmospheric water content +++ +++ Cloud cover ++ ++ ++ CO2 Other GHG +++ Air pollution and trace gases +++ Aerosols +++ +++ (a): E.g., mercury released from melting glaciers and permafrost that poisons food and water. (b): Except wind over the sea surface which is under marine.

4.1.5 Copernicus Services

4.1.5.1 The Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) The Copernicus Global Land Service (CGLS) is a component of the Land Monitoring Core Service (LMCS) of Copernicus. CGLS operationally provides a series of bio-geophysical products on the status and evolution of the land surface, at global scale and at mid to low spatial resolution (i.e. with a resolution of about 300 m and 1 km respectively). The products are used to monitor the vegetation, the water cycle, the energy budget and the terrestrial cryosphere. The products are validated and externally reviewed, and are available as a time series with ensured continuity from about the year 2000 or later (depending of the parameter) until present. Most products are provided in near-real-time (NRT), i.e. every 10 days. CGLS uses data from the following instruments/satellites: o Sentinel 1, 2 and 3 o PROBA (ESA) o SPOT (France) o SEVIRI onboard MSG (EUMETSAT) o GOES (NOAA) o AATSR and MERIS onboard ENVISAT (ESA) o MODIS onboard Terra and Acqua (NASA) o VIIRS onboard Suomi-NPP (NOAA/NASA) o SSMIS onboard DMSP (U.S. Air Force) o ASCAT onboard Metop (EUMETSAT) Currently provided parameters: o Specific cryosphere parameters: snow cover, snow water equivalent, lake ice extent.

38 o Other parameters with relevance for the Arctic: global land cover, vegetation parameters (Leaf Area Index (LAI), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)), surface soil moisture, soil water index, land surface temperature, surface albedo, water quality (turbidity). Most products are available up to northern latitudes of 70N – 85N, depending on the parameter. The two exceptions are surface soil moisture and lake ice extent, which are only available as regional products for Europe and the Baltic sea region, respectively. All data products provided by CGLS are accessible for free through a dedicated web portal: http://land.copernicus.vgt.vito.be/PDF/portal/Application.html#Home

4.1.5.2 The Copernicus Marine Environment Service (CMEMS) It relies on a network of European marine data producers that provide state-of-the-art scientific knowledge in order to build a portfolio of ocean data products. The CMEMS producers are categorized into two categories of centres: Thematic Data Assembly Centers (TAC) that process data acquired from satellite and in situ observations into real-time and reprocessed (20 years archive) products. There are 8 TACs that are summarized in Table 6: highlighting in particular the products that are relevant for the Arctic.

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

TAC Products Infrastructure Arctic Specificity Users partners

Sea Ice Operational multi- EUMETSAT OSI Automatic near real Climate models mission data (Ocean and Sea time ice parameter products derived Ice) SAF products NWP and from upstream Ocean/Ice satellite data (L2) Copernicus Climate Homogenization of hindcast models Change Services SAR products Sea ice variables (C3S) Environmental and time series Iceberg monitoring, agencies National Ice robust ice thickness Primary source: services, information SAR data from meteorological Sentinel-1 institutes from Two new products Denmark, Norway as of 9/07/19: Ice chart products and Finland - SAR Sea Ice Berg SIT from Envisat IFREMER, DTU, Concentration and Cryosat-2 NERSC, AWI, product British Antarctic - Sea Ice Thickness Survey (SIT) reprocessed (Arctic Ocean)

Surface wind Data products EUMETSAT OSI Operational Met derived from (Ocean and Sea Services, scatterometers Ice) SAF analyses and satellite missions ocean models Dutch Research or Meteorological Environmental Institute (KNMI), monitoring. Ifremer

Sea level Along track Sea CLS, CNES, Dedicated product Data assimilation surface height LEGOS, IMEDEA in NRT for the and regional observation data Arctic models validation derived mainly from Sentinel-3A,

39 Saral/Altika, Cryosat-2

INS In situ temperature, Collaboration with Near real time Ocean salinity, currents, EUROGOOS, forecasting

waves and other SeaDataNet and Delay mode centres variables international programs (Argo, GOSUD, OceanSITES)

Ocean colour Satellite ocean National Research Regional product Ocean models colour products Council of Italy, Acri- Research or from satellite ST, PML, Helmholtz Environmental sensors (MERS, Zentrum, Aequora monitoring MODIS mainly) consulting

Sea Surface Satellite data from National Research Global / regional Ocean models Temperature NASA, NOAA, Council of Italy, product Research or EUMETSAT OSI- Meteorological Environmental SAF, ESA institutes (UK, NRT and monitoring France, Denmark), reprocessed Ifremer

Wave Derived from CLS, Ifremer Near Real time Ocean models altimeter (Sentinel Research or 3A-3B; AltiKa; Environmental Cryosat-2) and monitoring SAR (Sentinel 1A, Sentinel 1B)

Multi Input data from CLS, National Observations different sensors, Research Council of satellite and in-situ Italy, LSCE, LOV

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

40

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

Monitoring and Forecasting Centers (MFC) run ocean numerical models assimilating the above TAC data to generate reanalyses (20 years in the past), analyses (today) and 10-day forecasts of the ocean. There are 7 MFCs distributed according to the geographical coverage. The ARC MFC is the monitoring forecasting centre for the whole Arctic. It provides the most accurate forecast and reanalysis products and ensures the consistency of the information on sea ice, ocean, and biology and surface waves. The system is based on a numerical ocean model assimilating in situ and satellite data. Arctic MFC has 5 products: two near-real-time forecasting products for the ocean physical conditions and the corresponding biological forecast restricted to the lower trophic. ARC MFC is led by NERSC and two Norwegian consortium members the Meteorologisk Institutt and the Institute of Marine Research (IMR).

4.1.5.3 The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) CAMS provides consistent and quality-controlled global data for six thematic topic areas: air quality, policy tools, solar energy, ozone layer and UV radiation, emissions and surface fluxes, and climate forcing. CAMS uses satellite data and observations, together with computer models to track the transport and accumulation of atmospheric pollutants in Europe and globally, thus including the Arctic. The main services are:  analyses and forecasts of atmospheric composition at global (40 km resolution) and regional scale (10 km resolution)  reanalyses of the atmospheric composition in the past, for the period 2003-2018 at global scale (80 km resolution), 2012-2017 at regional scale (10 km resolution)  Global Fires Assimilation System (GFAS), monitoring of wildfire emissions and pollution transport in the Arctic (https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-monitors-unprecedented- wildfires-arctic)  ozone layer monitoring and forecast (https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/mini-ozone-hole- predicted-copernicus-atmosphere-monitoring-service-appears-over-western-canada)

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

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

Instrument Satellite Space Agency Parameters

IASI METOP-A, METOP-B, EUMETSAT/CNES CO, O3, CH4, CO2 METOP-C

GOME-2 METOP-A, METOP-B EUMETSAT/ESA HCHO, O3, NO2, SO2

PMAp METOP-A, METOP-B EUMETSAT AOD

TROPOMI Sentinel-5p ESA/NSO O3, NO2, SO2, CO, HCHO, CH4

SLSTR Sentinel-3 ESA/EUMETSAT AOD, FRP

SEVIRI METEOSAT, MSG EUMETSAT O3, AOD, FRP, Cloud information

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

4.1.5.4 The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) C3S integrates a dedicated service for Global Shipping using high quality climate data to help for decision-making processes, support medium and long-term planning for the shipping sector. The indicators produced by the Service are derived from reanalysis, seasonal forecasts or climate projections, so the timescales of interest range from a month to several decades. The Global Shipping Service uses seasonal forecast and reanalysis data available on the CDS (Climate Data Store) for wind, waves, ocean current, sea surface pressure, air and sea surface temperature. For the ice-related indicators, the Service uses historical data and climate projections for ice thickness and concentration. The main objective of the Service is to develop tools that convert raw input data into useful indicators for decision-making. The main tools being developed as part of the Service are: a fuel-consumption model allowing users to calculate the impact of met ocean conditions and seasonal forecasts on the cost of a given route. an arctic route availability model allowing to estimate the number of days per year a given route will be available based on projected ice conditions in the Arctic. an iceberg drifting model allowing users to define the iceberg limit line given historical iceberg distributions and seasonal forecast of sea and air temperature, wind and currents. ERA5, the ECMWF’s new atmospheric reanalysis provides a detailed picture of the global weather and climate back to 1979. Reanalysis datasets are used for climate monitoring, climate studies and meteorological research, and they underpin an increasing variety of sectoral applications. They also support numerical weather prediction, for example by providing a reference against which the quality of forecasts from successive model versions can be compared.

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

4.1.5.5 The Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) The service uses satellite imagery and other geospatial data to monitor disasters, providing information throughout the whole disaster cycle, including prevention, preparedness, response and post-event information on damage and recovery. CEMS has two main components, one focusing on the Mapping of disasters and a second one dealing with Early Warning and Monitoring of floods, wildfires and droughts. The Mapping service provides free of charge maps of natural disasters, human-made emergency situations and humanitarian crises throughout the world. The CEMS Mapping service produces maps with two types of provision: the rapid mapping and the risk and recovery mapping. The rapid mapping service provides geospatial information within hours or days from the activation in support of emergency management activities immediately following a disaster. Several events have been registered with the emergency service for the Arctic region. These events are mainly related to the monitoring of iceberg drift and its associated risk for the population (Figure 16).

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

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

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

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

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

For these activations satellite images are key to perform the evaluation. A frequent revisit of the satellite is also desired to increase the responsiveness of the evaluation.  Risk and recovery mapping The provision of geospatial information in this case is done on-demand and is not related to immediate response. It is used for prevention, preparedness, disaster risk reduction and recovery phases. The EMS Mapping service can be triggered only by or through an Authorised User (AU). Authorised Users include National Focal Points (NFPs) in the EU Member States and countries participating in the Copernicus programme, as well as European Commission services and the European External Action Service (EEAS).  Early Warning and Monitoring systems for floods, fires and droughts For the Arctic region, another very relevant component of CEMS is the Early Warning and Monitoring systems for floods, fires and droughts. Different from the Mapping component, the CEMS Early Warning and Monitoring systems provide a continuous monitoring of floods, wildfires and droughts and do not need to be activated by the end user. The European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) is the main CEMS system providing continuous monitoring of wildfires in the pan-European region, including Europe, North Africa and Middle East. The JRC is currently working on the development of a service for wildfire monitoring at the global scale, the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS, https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Although not fully operational, GWIS uses satellite imagery from different sensors from NASA and Copernicus and is able to monitor active fires and map burnt areas globally. Figure 18 shows the map of burnt areas produced by GWIS for the Artic region in the first ten months of 2019, comparing the trend of 2019 with that of the previous 18 years. The extent of burnt areas has been estimated by the Global Wildfire Information System using the JRC’s global database of wildfires, derived from data acquired by the NASA MODIS sensor.

44

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

4.1.5.6 The Copernicus Security Service (CSS) The Security Service is the smallest of the Copernicus Services and the last one to be developed. It provides information in response to Europe’s security challenges. It covers prevention, preparedness and response. It currently has three components:  Maritime Surveillance,  Border Surveillance,  Support to EU External Action. These three components are often referred to as services, e.g. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance (CMS) Service” etc., but they are sub-services of the CSS. None of the components is particularly focussed on the Arctic, but all may have application there. Unlike the other five services, the CSS is not open / public, but only intended for authorised governmental users. It works on demand, following specific activation requests that need to go through designated contact points for approval. Authorised users include MS national administrations and EU bodies. As Copernicus was designed primarily for global monitoring, the space component of Copernicus, the Sentinel satellites, is not optimised for security applications. In particular, their resolution is not very high. This is why the third party missions play a big role in collecting data for the CSS (VHR optical and HR SAR satellites). Like the other Copernicus services, the CSS information products are not derived solely from satellite data, but also incorporate non-satellite data coming from intelligence sources. Many security applications require timeliness, so the CSS has a rapid response time for a number of products and services (in common with the Copernicus Emergency Management Service).

45 Each component is operationally run by a different “Entrusted Entity” (EE); in the case of CSS these are all EU Agencies. The EEs, in turn, subcontract a significant part of the operational production to industry. Each component has a reference list (catalogue) of products and services. The three components are detailed in the following. CSS Maritime Surveillance (CMS)12 This component is implemented by EMSA, the European Maritime Safety Agency. It supports improved monitoring of activities at sea. Application areas include fisheries control, maritime safety and security, law enforcement, customs activities, marine environment (pollution monitoring). Automatic ship self-reporting systems, mainly AIS, provide important non-EO data to combine with the EO data in the maritime surveillance process. Many of these systems use long-range communication to transmit small amounts of data (identity, position, speed, etc.) from the ship to the shore; for this, they rely on satellites. A Product Catalogue (EMSA 2018) specifies in detail the attributes of the products and services. For fisheries control in EU, third country and international waters, satellite images are also used to verify the data that ships report via their automatic reporting systems (VMS, AIS) and  check if there are ships in zones that are closed for fishing;  monitor fishing activities in areas that are not subject to mandatory reporting (some High Seas areas);  look for transhipping near fishing zones;  monitor aquaculture (presence of fish cages that float near the coast, their movements as they are being towed, supply vessels in their vicinity); In this way, they contribute to implementing the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and globally to combatting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. An important user of the service is the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). Under maritime safety and security, satellite images are used to:  Monitor the aftermath of accidents and incidents at sea;  Support maritime search and rescue;  Support vessel traffic routing;  Track floating objects that could pose a risk, such as icebergs or abandoned ships adrift;  Locate, identify and track vessels of interest and/or inspect their behaviour. Functions under law enforcement encompass:  Support the prevention of piracy and armed robbery at sea;  Monitor ships that have been hijacked;  Combat trafficking and smuggling (with high interest for narcotics and arms);  Combat illegal pollution. Satellite images are used in this context to detect and track suspicious targets, confirm their presence or absence in areas indicated by intelligence, inspect ships’ decks for compromising objects or configurations, monitor shorelines and ports, and detect suspicious behaviour. Marine environment monitoring concerns mostly oil pollution. Ships, oil platforms and pipelines may discharge (small amounts of) oil or dirty bilge water which is in most cases illegal but can be readily detected on SAR images, even some time (up to days) after the discharge took place. The results from the satellite data may be used to dispatch (national) surveillance airplanes for follow-up inspection. For that reason, analysis results can be available at the national customer within 30 min after image acquisition. Combining the location of the spill by the time it is detected with the recent AIS data history

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

46 helps to identify the perpetrator. Monitoring for illegal oil discharge is typically a pre-scheduled routine activity (so scheduling needs no hurry, but image results delivery does). Large amounts of oil may be released following accidents. In that case, satellite images are essential to monitor the spread of the spill. This requires emergency service activations. EMSA already operated the CleanSeaNet service for these purposes in European waters before the advent of Copernicus. However, Copernicus enables the extension of the service beyond Europe. The Joint Arctic Command of the Danish Defence Command has been a recent customer for monitoring the waters around Greenland for ship-sourced oil pollution. Several of the above application areas are provided to international organisations, e.g. in the context of search and rescue, anti-piracy or IUU. In that case, they can be considered to promote the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). An example is recent provision of satellite images and derived products to UNODC for exercises in West Africa related to counter-piracy, combating maritime crime and maritime security capacity building. CSS Maritime Surveillance uses the following satellites (all Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Polar Orbit):  Optical: o WorldView-1 through -4 o GeoEye-1 o Pleiades (1A and 1B) o DEIMOS-1 and -2 o SPOT-6 and -7 o Landsat-8  SAR: o Sentinel-1 o TerraSAR-X o RADARSAT-2

CSS Border Surveillance13 The Border Surveillance component is implemented by Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. This is done in the context of EUROSUR, the information-exchange framework designed to improve the management of Europe’s external borders14. EUROSUR aims to support MSs by increasing their situational awareness and reaction capability in combating cross-border crime, tackling irregular migration and preventing loss of migrant lives at sea. The backbone of EUROSUR is a network of National Coordination Centres (NCCs), which group the authorities responsible for border control in a given MS. The NCCs collect local and national information about what takes place at the border, including illegal border crossings and criminal activity. The data processed by the NCC personnel creates a national situational picture. The NCCs are also responsible for sharing the relevant information with other MS and Frontex. Based on this input and information from other sources, Frontex creates the European situational picture and the common pre-frontier intelligence picture (focused on areas beyond the Schengen Area and EU borders). In the light of security challenges in the area of external borders, the objective of the Border Surveillance component is to increase situational awareness by mapping, monitoring and providing risk assessment. The data from the EO satellites, optical and radar is combined with that from other surveillance and intelligence sources. For use over sea, much the same auxiliary data are used as for the Maritime Surveillance service component (ship reporting data, met/ocean data, hydrographic data). For use over land, likewise much the same auxiliary data are used as for the SEA service component (below;

13 Most information comes from the Copernicus and Frontex web sites. 14 Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of 22 Oct 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur), https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1052.

47 topographic and thematic map data). In addition, ELINT/SIGINT may be used if available (which in fact can also be used for some Maritime Surveillance application areas). The service component includes the following specific sub-services:  Coastal Monitoring;  Pre-frontier Monitoring;  Reference Imagery/Mapping;  Surveillance of Maritime Area of Interest;  Vessel Detection;  Vessel Tracking and Reporting;  Vessel Anomaly Detection;  Environmental Assessment;  Large Area Pre-frontier Monitoring;  Multi-sensor Monitoring;  EO Reconnaissance;  Cross border crime surveillance service. (NB, other sources15 give instead of the last three bullets: ProDetect Service and MUSO Migration Analytical Assessment.) These are designed to support, in areas identified through risk analysis, the operational assessment of irregular migration and cross-border crime.

CSS Support to EU External Action (SEA)16 This service component is implemented by the EU Satellite Centre (EUSATCEN). It is an operational European geospatial intelligence service, in support of the EU’s CFSP/CSDP, crisis management (prevention, preparedness and response), and monitoring of security issues outside the mainland EU territory. It should help to prevent global and trans-regional threats to have a destabilising effect on societies and economies. It supports strategic decision making and planning at various institutional levels, as well as operations and intervention. The satellites used are optical and SAR. The required imagery is requested by EUSATCEN through ESA’s Copernicus Space Component Data Access (CSCDA). The service can be activated on short notice for a single look. It can also carry out monitoring campaigns of longer duration to look for changes. Satellite images are analysed with processing techniques and by image analysts with specialised knowledge, making use of auxiliary non-satellite information. Best response times are specified as “a day or two”. Authorised users are:  European Commission  EEAS  CSDP Missions and Operations  MS authorities (MoD, MoFA, Intelligence services)  International organisations such as under UN

Relevance to the Arctic and future developments

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

48 It is obvious that the Maritime Surveillance component of the CSS is very relevant to the Arctic. As mentioned, it is already being used today for maritime oil pollution monitoring around Greenland at the request of the Danish responsible authorities. As ship traffic increases in the Arctic, the risk and occurrence of oil spills will also increase. The isolated nature of the Arctic might tempt ships to dump dirty bilge water, a common practice, in the hope that this is not noticed. The existence of a monitoring capacity is thus important. Also the fisheries monitoring and control application is most relevant. While waters in the 200 nautical mile EEZ can be protected under national jurisdiction, those beyond that are the High Seas that are open to all. They can only be protected through international agreements. The recent “Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean”17 aims to prevent unregulated fishing in the High Seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks. Under the agreement, ten parties have agreed to ban commercial fishing for an initial period of 16 years (to be extended automatically every five years), until scientists confirm that it can be done sustainably and until the parties agree on mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. The area in question, where up to now no fishing has taken place, is about the size of the Med Sea. The signatories include the Arctic states Canada, Norway, Russia, Denmark (for Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and the U.S., as well as the major fishing nations Iceland, Japan, South Korea, China and the EU. The agreement was signed on 3 Oct 2018, but its ratification is still ongoing – the EU ratified by Council decision on 4 Mar 201918 and the U.S. most recently in August 201919. This makes it possible to follow up with enforcement actions, rendering the monitoring results actionable. The Maritime Surveillance component already now lists icebergs as a topic in the context of maritime safety. It would have a very good potential to extend its service to Arctic navigation safety. As to Border Surveillance, there are EU borders in the Arctic, primarily with Russia: the land border with Finland, and also with Norway (Schengen partner). Likewise there are sea borders with Russia as well as EEZ borders on the High Seas. When we consider Greenland, there is also a long sea border with Canada. The Arctic sea borders receive little attention today, but with increasing ship traffic that may change a bit. The Support to External Action component is today little used in the Arctic, but if MS and EU bodies increase their interest in the Arctic that may also change. Whereas conflict-related observations seem a long way off, it might find justification in monitoring the build-up of infrastructures and activities outside EU territory in the Arctic. As to technological evolution, all EO services including Copernicus are presently looking at the handling of Big Data with the help of cloud computing and Machine Learning (ML). As the amount of EO and other data increases dramatically, their analysis should become much faster by applying ML techniques. Such developments should and will also be applied for the CSS, by the Entrusted Entities and in particular by their industrial contractors. Significant developments in the automatic processing of satellite images with sea ice are still needed however. (Mostly on SAR images that survey wide areas and are not sensitive to cloud cover.) Also the large flow of Sentinel images, which are continuously collecting over the Arctic, should be better exploited, as medium resolution data that is available with a high update rate in combination with high resolution data from third party missions that is available only at limited locations and times.

4.2 Other EO satellite missions

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

17https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/38356/st10788-en18.pdf. 18https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/04/central-arctic-eu-to-enter-agreement-against- unregulated-fishing/. 19 https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/08/us-ratifies-moratorium-fishing-high-arctic-seas.

49 be related to soil moisture and ocean salinity. In addition, the radiometer, which uses a wavelength of 21 cm (L-band), is also able to detect sea ice. Cryosat-2 is the operational ESA Earth explorer mission which is the most relevant for the Arctic, launched on 08 April 2010 (expected EOL ≥2020). It has become the first satellite to provide information on Arctic sea-ice thickness in near-real time to aid maritime activities in the polar region. The mission objectives are to monitor variations in the thickness of polar ice through use of a satellite in LEO. The information provided about the behaviour of coastal glaciers that drain thinning ice sheets will be key to better predictions of future sea level rise. Swarm was successfully launched on 22 November 2013. It consists of three satellites mapping the Earth’s magnetic field every 90 minutes. These observations can be used to update the World Magnetic model, which is used in many navigation systems. It must be noted that the Earth’s North magnetic pole is currently drifting at a rate of 55 to 60 km per year. Aeolus is the first satellite mission to provide profiles of Earth’s wind globally. It was launched on 22 August 2018. Its near-real time observations are since 12 May 2020 made available in near real time through EUMETCast (EUMETSAT dissemination system) and the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Telecommunication System (GTS). Since January 2020, ECMWF include Aeolus data in their weather forecasts. These observations are set to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts as well as advance our understanding of atmospheric dynamics and processes linked to climate variability. Aeolus’ Aladin (Atmospheric Laser Doppler Instrument) is the only instrument that provides wind profiles from space. Wind profiles, especially over remote areas, are very important for numerical weather prediction and to better understand global wind circulation.

4.2.2 Other European satellite missions

4.2.2.1 Finland ICEYE's overall mission is to enable better decision making by providing timely and reliable EO data. It is the first proof-of-concept microsatellite mission with a SAR sensor as its payload. ICEYE-X1 was launched on January 12th, 2018. ICEYE is building a constellation of 18 SAR satellites by end of 2020 and will enable a 3 hour on average revisit rate around the globe. The satellite is also the very first Finnish commercial satellite. The ICEYE-X1 demonstration mission was ended in 2018 with very successful results in demonstrating the capabilities of the novel SAR sensor and captured more than 600 unique acquisitions from a variety of test sites. SAR satellite images are particularly useful for maritime applications for monitoring port and sea traffic, seafaring in icy waters and early detection of oil spills. SAR technology on board is designed to provide almost real-time imagery at any time also at night and through cloud cover. ICEYE is in particular of high interest in forecasting and detecting Iceberg movements and in ensuring the security of offshore oil and gas operations in icy waters.

4.2.2.2 France / India The overall objectives of the joint French-Indian programme SARAL (Satellite with Argos and ALtiKa) are to realize precise, repetitive global measurements of sea surface height, significant wave heights and wind speed for the development of operational oceanography and developing forecasting capabilities. The SARAL mission, launched on 25 February 2013, is very relevant for monitoring the Arctic having a capacity of covering polar areas up to ±81.5° geographical latitude. The instruments on board SARAL are AltiKa, the altimeter, and an Advanced Data collection System called Argos-3. The third-generation receiver of the Argos system allows locating and collecting environmental data from any platform equipped with an Argos transmitter, from drifting buoys to turtles or birds.

50 4.2.2.3 France / China CFOSAT (China-France Oceanography SATellite) allows studying ocean surface winds and waves. The data allow getting more reliable sea-state forecasts and are used for ocean-atmosphere interactions. It is a joint French-China programme: CNSA being responsible of the platform, the launch and the scatterometer; CNES being in charge of the altimeter. CFOSAT carries two Ku radar payloads: a wave scatterometer and a wind scatterometer. CFOSAT has several assets for ice studies: the polar orbit allows having a daily revisit of polar areas (3 days for global coverage), a better characterization of ice/snow properties. It can also be used in synergy with other altimeters (Sentinel-3, Cryosat-2 and AltiKa). One of its original features is the possibility to assess the waves’ impact on the ice sheet.

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

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

4.2.3 EUMETSAT satellite missions and facilities

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

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

51

Figure 19: Summary of the different Eumetsat SAF

One of the facilities which is of particular interest for the Arctic region is the OSI (Ocean and Sea Ice) SAF that provide sea ice, SST, wind and radiative flux products. Products related to key parameters of ocean-atmosphere interface are provided in near real time. Climatological data records are also provided.

4.2.4 International Missions

4.2.4.1 Canada RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) is the evolution of the RADARSAT program with the objectives to ensure data continuity and respond to the increasing needs of the Government of Canada for SAR data to support operations in the areas of maritime surveillance, disaster management and ecosystem monitoring. RCM is composed of 3 identical satellites. Each of them has two payloads, a C-Band SAR (5.405 GHz) and a receiver for Automatic Identification System (AIS) transmission from vessels. The use of AIS in conjunction with the radar data will allow improved detection and tracking of vessels of interest. The very innovative feature of RCM is brought by the circular Compact Polarisation (transmit circular and receive dual linear Horizontal and Vertical ones) that will allow better detection, measurement, and discrimination of surface features and characteristics. RCM is a government-owned mission. About the RCM SAR Data policy there is neither commercial tasking nor commercial data distribution. Registration is required to access the data. There will be acquisition priority according to the emergency and urgent monitoring needs. RCM was successfully launched on 12Th June 2019.

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

4.2.4.2 United States of America ICESat-2 is the second flight unit of the ICESat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) programme. The main objective of the mission is to conduct polar ice observation and ice sheet mass balance with the capability to derive sea ice thickness. The NASA mission ensures a global coverage in 183 days (the orbit repeat cycle) leaving cross–track 2.5 km gaps at 80° latitude. The four objectives of the mission are to measure and monitor the changes in the mass of ice sheets and glaciers, investigate the subsequent effects on sea level rise, estimate sea ice thickness and its changes, and measure vegetation height worldwide. Another important dimension brought by the ICE-Sat-2 mission is the possibility to study the location and extent of forests thanks to the ATLAS sensor (Advance Topographic Laser Altimeter System). The ICESAT-2 mission is also beneficial for the hydrological community to provide terrestrial snow thickness and permafrost monitoring. The main objectives of MODIS, the Moderate Resolution Imaging spectro-radiometer on board both Terra and Aqua satellites, are to improve our understanding of global dynamics and processes occurring on the land, in the oceans and in the lower atmosphere. The provision of surface temperature for the Arctic is done through the CGLDS (Copernicus Global Land Data System). The products related to snow cover and sea ice data sets derived from MODIS observations are provided by the NSIDC archives.

53 4.3 Other EO Capabilities An overview of the main relevant platforms used for Arctic EO data is summarized.

4.3.1 Services and Platforms

4.3.1.1 Norway infrastructure

The Norwegian KSAT (Kongsberg Satellite Services) company provides near-real time EO services for the detection and monitoring of oil spills, vessels and sea ice. The satellite-based oil and vessel detection services are provided to EMSA CSN (European Maritime Safety Agency Clean Sea Net) for a large area in the Arctic region (zones 6 and 7), as well as in northern Europe (zones 5, 8 and 9) depicted in Figure 20. Norway’s foreseen MicroSAR system was mentioned before in section 4.2.2.5.

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

4.3.1.2 Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing Systems (SIOS) SIOS20 is the northernmost Copernicus Relay and provides remote sensing service to the members. SIOS is a consortium of 25 institutes from 10 nations with infrastructures in and around Svalbard. The planned distributed installations (instruments/sensors/facility) within the atmosphere, terrestrial, ocean and common modules of the InfraNor project can be found at https://sios-svalbard.org/InfraNor. The conceptual map of SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard is depicted in Figure 21.

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

54

Figure 21: SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard

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

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

List of observations Partners involved

Ice concentration (from SSMI, AMSR2) NERSC, University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), Ifremer, Ice area and extent, global ice drift (merged ASCAT and Norwegian Meteorological Institute, DMI, SSM/I) Eumetsat-OSI SAF Daily observations of Arctic ice concentration maps Regional ice charts

4.3.1.4 TEP Polar The Polar Thematic Exploitation Platform has been developed by the organisation Polar View Earth Observation Limited (Polar View) for the European Space Agency. The concept of the TEP aims at providing a working environment where users can access algorithms and data remotely. The platform allows avoiding the need to download and store large volumes of data, thereby encouraging the exploitation of EO data.

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

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

The Polar View Community Service combines technology, including EO data, with local knowledge to create ice information useful for northern communities. The applications aim to mitigate operation risks. In particular, key features allow providing up-to-date iceberg locations, instant coverage of large areas, up to daily generation of iceberg observations. The service is implemented in collaboration with C-CORE (www.c-core.ca) and the Danish Meteorological Institute (www.dmi.dk), and with the support of the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service.

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

Input data Services Products

Multi-mission satellite imagery Pre-season planning Iceberg location

Ship automatic identification Risk analysis Ship vs iceberg discrimination system (AIS) data

Forecasts Planning, coordination, de- Ice front location conflicting of image acquisitions Ice type classification Ice cover change

The platform is accessible at https://polarview.looknorthservices.com/ and gathers Sentinel-1, Sentinel- 2 data and Modis (250 m) data. The Polar View Community Ice service has been developed working closely with the Qaanaaq community (North Greenland). The service is being extended to all communities in Greenland.

4.3.1.6 EMODnet The main purpose of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is to unlock fragmented and hidden marine data resources and to make these available to individuals and organisations (both public and private), and to facilitate investment in sustainable coastal and offshore activities through improved access to quality-assured, standardised and harmonised marine data which are interoperable and free of restrictions on use. EMODnet is a consortium of organisations assembling European marine data, data products and metadata from diverse sources in a uniform way. It is a long-term marine data initiative from the European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) underpinning its Marine Knowledge 2020 strategy.

56 EMODnet provides access to European marine data across seven discipline-based themes: Bathymetry, Geology, Seabed habitats, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Human activities. For each of these themes, EMODnet has created a gateway to a range of data archives managed by local, national, regional and international organisations. Through these gateways, users have access to standardized observations, data quality indicators and processed data products, such as basin-scale maps. These data products are free to access and use. General access is at http://www.emodnet.eu/. There is a dedicated Arctic checkpoint at http://www.emodnet.eu/arctic. Some of the data products made available under EMODnet are based on data gathered by satellites. For example, the EMODnet ship density maps are based on a combination of satellite-received and coastal-received AIS messages broadcast from ships (Figure 22). Other EMODnet data are not space- based but can be used as auxiliary data when processing and interpreting EO data.

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

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

4.3.2 Relevant R&D Actions The services and platforms that are currently available for the end users have been identified and listed with an emphasize on the specific information existing for the Arctic space users. The inventory has also the scope to highlight and identify the challenges of the Big data systems. Those challenges are linked to the data volume, data continuity, data sharing and data quality and are key for the end users. To cope with these different challenges innovation, timeliness, mission synergies and uniqueness need to be taken into consideration.

57 4.3.2.1 ESA Projects Knowledge of permafrost distribution and dynamics is relevant both for operational activities (transport, construction) and for understanding its interactions with ecosystems and climate change. The main permafrost variables - permafrost extent/fraction, active layer thickness, and ground temperature profile - cannot be directly observed from space. However, they can be estimated based on proxies (land cover, subsidence & ground deformation, water storage from gravimetric studies, lake extent) or determined from a combination of modelling and satellite data products of ground temperature, soil moisture, vegetation cover, and snow cover. In ESA’s DUE-GlobPermafrost project, the second approach was used to generate two basic datasets in a resolution of 1 km, representing the period 2000-2016: • Mean annual ground temperature at the top of permafrost • Probability of permafrost occurrence The datasets can be downloaded from links provided on the project’s website: https://www.globpermafrost.info/cms. A viewer which was specifically developed for the visualization of permafrost data from this project can be accessed here: https://maps.awi.de/awimaps/projects/public/?cu=globpermafrost_overview#home ESA has launched the Permafrost CCI Project, which is a component of ESA’s Climate Change Initiative (CCI). The objective of CCI is to produce datasets for a subset of Essential Climate Variables (ECV) as defined by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), which includes permafrost. The product includes ground temperature, active layer thickness, permafrost extent, and permafrost classification information. A first version of the data is made available here : http://data.ceda.ac.uk/neodc/esacci/permafrost/data/active_layer_thickness/L4/area4/pp/v02.0/

4.3.2.2 H2020 Projects EU is a major investor in Arctic research, 200 M€ have been invested through Horizon 2020 (2014- 2020). Table 10 gives a summary of the different EU projects dedicated to the region while indicating their topic and objectives.

Table 10: EU funded Arctic research and innovation H2020 projects

Project name Themes

EU-Polarnet Generate new knowledge about the world’s polar regions which are seen as indicators of our planet’s health. 2015-2020

Intaros Develop an integrated Arctic Observation System (iAOS) by extending, improving and unifying existing systems. It seeks to help address Arctic challenges and enable better- 2016-2021 informed decision-making.

iCupe Help establish and maintain long-term, coherent and coordinated polar observations and research activities. Its focus is on improving the integration of existing in-situ 2017-2020 observational networks collecting data on pollutants, including aerosols and trace gases, as well as contaminants. It also seeks to harmonise quality control.

Interact This project aims to build capacity for identifying, understanding, predicting and responding to diverse environmental changes in the Arctic. It offers scientists access to 2016-2020 numerous research stations, giving them the chance to work in the field in often remote locations.

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

58 2018-2021 with the maritime industry on a programme that involves commercial ships collecting oceanic and atmospheric data.

Applicate This project addresses the need for trustworthy weather and climate predictions in the Arctic and beyond. APPLICATE’s international team of experts are aiming to make 2016-2020 significant improvements to current climate and weather models and help determine the influence of Arctic climate change on the Northern Hemisphere.

Blue action The aim of BLUE-ACTION is to boost the ability to describe, model and predict Arctic climate change and its impact on the Northern Hemisphere. It seeks to do this by, for 2016-2021 example, improving the uptake of relevant EO satellite data and contributing to a forecasting framework.

Nunataryuk The main goal of NUNATARYUK is to determine the impact of thawing land, coast and subsea permafrost on both the global climate and humans in the Arctic, and to develop 2017-2022 targeted and co-designed adaptation and mitigation strategies.

GRACE The GRACE project is focusing on developing, comparing and evaluating the effectiveness and environmental impact of different oil spill response methods in a cold 2016-2019 climate. It is also developing a system for the real-time observation of underwater oil spills and a strategic tool for choosing oil spill response methods.

SEDNA This project is developing an innovative and integrated risk-based approach to safe Arctic navigation, ship design and operation to enable European maritime interests to 2017-2020 fully embrace the Arctic’s significant and growing shipping opportunities while safeguarding its natural environment.

ARCSAR The ARCSAR project will monitor research and innovation projects and recommend the uptake and the industrialization of results, express common requirements as regards 2018-2023 innovations that could fill in capability and other gaps and improve their performance in the future, and indicate priorities as regards common capabilities, or interfaces among capabilities, requiring more standardization. The project will look into the need for enhanced measures to respond to composite challenges including surveillance of and mobilization in case of threat situations, and emergency response capability related to search and rescue (SAR), environmental protection, firefighting, and actions against terror or other forms of destructive action.

KEPLER KEPLER is a multi-partner initiative, built around the operational European Ice Services and Copernicus information providers, to prepare a roadmap for Copernicus to deliver 2019-2021 an improved European capacity for monitoring and forecasting the Polar Regions.

Another relevant H2020 project to highlight in the context of this study is the Operational Network of Individual Observation Nodes (ONION). It consists in identifying and characterising solutions to meet needs in the European EO market using Fractionated and Federated Satellite Systems (FFSS). This innovative ONION concept aims at ensuring competitive imaging from Space, supplementing the current European EO infrastructures to serve emerging needs.

4.4 Future missions

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

59 4.4.1.1 CHIME (Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission): The CHIME mission will complement the conventional passive optical spectral remote sensing missions such as Sentinel-2. It will provide routine hyperspectral observations for the management of natural resources. This includes biodiversity on land, forestry, inland and coastal waters, environmental degradation and hazards, hydrology and cryosphere (ESA 2019). The main benefits expected from the mission are a higher temporal resolution to monitor snow properties, detailed knowledge of snow albedo, accurate snow covered area and snow water equivalent. CHIME would bring key observation to assess environmental degradation and hazards, permafrost change, water availability and serve as early warning capacity for avalanche risk for the Arctic region.

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

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

4.4.1.3 CO2M (Copernicus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Monitoring): The European Union’s Copernicus programme has launched an initiative to support the stocktaking exercise with a new observation-based service to monitor CO2 emissions resulting from human activities. The analysis of these measurements will allow EU member states and other countries to track

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

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

4.4.1.5 LSTM (Copernicus Land Surface Temperature Monitoring): The LSTM mission would carry a high spatial-temporal resolution thermal infrared sensor to provide observations of Land-Surface Temperature (LST). Surface temperature is a crucial parameter for permafrost monitoring. The LSTM will provide important capacities for snow, glacier and permafrost monitoring (Koetz et al. 2019). The LSTM mission will provide high resolution monitoring of LST variation of the season and for long- term trends. In particular it will allow getting a dynamic range of LST measurements required by permafrost and frost applications (ranging from 248K to 280K). Thermal Infrared data (TIR) are also used for studies related to glacier lakes or Arctic (and Subarctic) lakes. In particular, lake surface temperature and thermal stratification are important parameters in the analysis of changes occurred over these ecosystems.

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

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

61

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

4.4.3 Future Member States Missions The French-German Methane Remote Sensing LIDAR Mission (MERLIN) is designed to observe the greenhouse gas methane with an active LIDAR instrument from an altitude of about 500 km. The main goals are to produce maps of methane concentration and to identify sources and sinks of methane. The launch date is planned for 2024, with a mission lifetime of three years. Using an active instrument, this mission will be able to provide information on methane day and night, including in the polar winter, and also under cloudy conditions. It is co-designed by CNES and DLR. The Italian Space Agency will launch the PRISMA future mission that will include an EO system with innovative, electro-optical instrumentation that combines a hyperspectral sensor with a medium- resolution panchromatic camera. The applications the more relevant for the Arctic region will be for inland and coastal waters, climate change and environmental research, and natural resources exploration and mining. COSMO-SkyMed Second generation (CSM-SG) (Constellation of Small Satellites for Mediterranean basin Observation) is a series of 2 satellites for SAR observation. The Italian Space Agency (ASI) is responsible of the development and operations. Launch was in December 2019. EnMAP is a German hyperspectral satellite mission that aims at monitoring and characterising the Earth’s environment on a global scale. EnMAP serves to measure and model key dynamic processes of the Earth’s ecosystems by extracting geochemical, biochemical and biophysical parameters, which provide information on the status and evolution of various terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The discrimination of the different vegetation types and biophysical parameters is of great interest for tundra/permafrost research even if permafrost cannot be directly observed by optical remote sensing. EnMap launch is planned in 2020 and will contribute to provide a synergistic data collection bringing fine spectral and spatial resolution with the broader swath coverage provided by other existing producs from MODIS or Sentinel 3 dataset.

4.4.4 Future EUMETSAT satellites EPS-SG is EUMETSAT's next generation of polar-orbiting satellites, following on from EUMETSAT Polar System programme (Metop). It will secure the continuation of meteorological observations from the polar orbit in the 2022-2043 timeframe. In particular, the nowcasting (prediction in near-real time) will be available at high latitudes. The key features of the mission that are relevant for the Arctic include operational oceanography through the delivery of ocean surface wind motion vectors, sea surface temperature and sea ice cover. The EPS-SG mission will be composed of two series of three spacecraft each, Metop-SG A (launch in 2022) and Metop-SG B (launch in 2023). Both satellite types will be equipped with GNSS radio- occultation payloads (see section 8 on synergies) that will allow providing detailed information on the atmosphere and for climate monitoring.

4.4.5 International Missions The JPSS Joint Polar Satellite System will provide the global environmental data that are assimilated in the Numerical Weather Forecast systems and used for weather prediction applications. The data and imagery provided by JPSS will increase timeliness and accuracy of public warnings and forecasts of climate and weather events. Data from the JPSS system shall be made freely available, by the United States Government, to domestic and international users, in support of U.S. commitments for the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). EarthCARE (Earth Cloud Aerosol and Radiation Explorer) is an ESA Earth Explorer mission planned to be launched in the early 2020. The European/Japanese satellite will use two large instruments: an atmospheric Lidar (ATLID) and a Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) and measure vertical velocities of cloud particles and information on thick clouds. EarthCare’s orbit is near-polar and will provide a global

62 coverage. Regarding the data processing, the satellite data will be downlinked to a high-latitude ground station and the instrument data will be processed up to Level 1 by ESA for the lidar, imager and radiometer, and by JAXA for the radar. The future SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) is a joint mission between NASA and CNES including contributions from the Canadian Space Agency and the United Kingdom Space Agency. The objectives of the mission are to monitor the terrestrial surface waters and the ocean surface topography. The revisit time will be 11 days over most of the globe.

Summary of Earth Observation Capability in the Arctic

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 5 Inventory of current and future capabilities in Satellite navigation In this section, European GNSS (EGNSS) services and products relevant for the Arctic region are presented. GNSS-based navigation relies on satellites broadcasting ranging signals. Satellites visibility is usually constrained by the latitude of the observer; although in a very different way Galileo and European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) are affected by the constraints at high latitude. From EGNOS perspective, satellite visibility is limited and the more active ionosphere could limit the high-accuracy positioning, whereas for Galileo the main limitations are relative to the maximum elevation of the satellites. In addition, the infrastructure to necessary to download assistance data for GNSS, map updates, and traffic information has gaps in uninhabited areas. In the Arctic, positioning and navigation systems face a number of limitations that cannot be easily overcome. This includes the ionospheric effect which introduces severe degradation for single frequency users; such effects are mitigated by the adoption of dual frequency receivers (European Commission 2016b). This type of devices is able to remove the first term of the ionospheric error exploiting signals on two different frequencies (Hegarty and Kaplan 2006). In addition to the ionospheric error, in the Arctic region an increased electron precipitation can be observed which causes higher ionospheric variability reducing performance of the ionospheric model. Satellite communications and Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) are also significantly affected by reduced performance in the Arctic, because these services are based on geostationary satellites which are visible at very low elevation angles; moreover, in the most Northern parts of the area the reception of signals from geostationary satellites is not possible at all. However, EGNOS Safety of Life (SoL) V2.4.2 will allow providing a service area extension and new SoL commitment maps extended to 72°N (European GNSS Agency 2016). Galileo services are presented in 5.2 then the products and services of EGNOS are described in Section 5.3.

5.1 Galileo Galileo is the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), able to provide different services in all-weather condition with a global coverage. In December 2016, Galileo officially moved from testing phase to the Initial service phase. The system is composed by of a space segment and a control segment. The key elements and the current status of the segments that are relevant for the Arctic region are reported in the following sections. Galileo provides several services which are described in the following sections. The nominal space segment of Galileo is composed of 24 plus 3 spares Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellites placed on 3 orbital planes. The ascending nodes of the orbital planes are separated by 120o and inclined of 56o with respect to the celestial Equator. The constellation already covers the Arctic region; in this region the horizontal geometrical conditions are enhanced with respect to middle latitude regions. Galileo satellite tracks are shown in Figure 25, the satellites geometry for users located at different latitudes from 55o to 90o are considered. The satellites positions have been computed using Galileo broadcast ephemerides of the 13th May 2019, the satellite positions have been computed for 24 hours. Figure 25 shows the improvements in the horizontal geometry in the Arctic region: at latitude higher than 60o North a user has satellites also in the upper part of the plot with an enhanced horizontal geometry. On the other hand when a user moves toward north, the satellites are visible with lowest elevation, this effect reduces the vertical geometry. The maximum satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude is shown in Figure 26, where GPS, Galileo and GLONASS satellites are considered.

65

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

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

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

66 5.2 Galileo Services Since December 2016, following the initial service declaration, Galileo started to deliver the following three types of service free of charge: Galileo Open Service (European Union 2016), Galileo Search and Rescue (European Commission 2016d) and Emergency Warning Service (EC 2016). A description of the services is provided in the following sections.

5.2.1 Open Service (OS) Galileo OS has been designed for non-safety critical purposes. The service allows positioning, navigation and timing synchronization worldwide in any weather condition, it is freely available for any user equipped with a Galileo enabled receiver (European GNSS Agency 2016). Galileo OS provides ranging signals and data broadcast by the Galileo constellation. The OS exploits the signal transmitted on two of the three frequencies used by the Galileo satellites. The frequencies are E1 and E5. Galileo OS exploits two different navigation messages: the F/NAV and the I/NAV. The F/NAV is broadcast on E5a while the I/NAV is broadcast on both E1-OS and E5b. F/NAV and I/NAV messages contain parameters and information allowing Galileo users to access the services. Galileo OS is already globally available. In order to show the contribution of the Galileo OS to the navigation and positioning in the Arctic region, the position accuracy that a dual frequency Galileo user may expect considering only errors originating from and/or controlled by the Galileo system (local effects and atmospheric effects are not considered) is shown on the maps in Figure 27 and Figure 28. Also in this case, the values obtained for the Arctic region are similar to that obtained in middle latitude regions. Figure 27 depicts the PDOP – Position of Dilution Of Precision that can be seen as 3D positioning accuracy and HDOP – Horizontal of DOP (monthly average) with values comprised respectively between 1.85 and 2.2 and 0.9 and 1.1. These numbers represent the factor with which a raw data measurement error is amplified into a final position error.

Figure 27: Position (3D) dilution of precision and horizontal (2D) dilution of precision are shown over the Arctic region. The horizontal positioning error (22 to 34 cm) and vertical positioning error (35 to 44cm) with a 95th percentile are shown in Figure 28.

67

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

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

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

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

68

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

In this framework, Galileo brings a net benefit in reducing significantly the detection time. Search and Rescue radius area size is typically reduced from 8 km to 2 km and a reduced time to locate the distress signals (4 minutes instead of four hours in the past). Figure 30 shows the ground infrastructure and the coverage area of the SaR Galileo service. The area covered by the SaR/Galileo is the area enclosed in the blue line which is referred to as SaR Galileo Coverage (SGC), while the search and rescue areas under the responsibilities of European territories are the area within the red line. The SGC is defined by the following coordinates: SGC1 85:00° North, 41:20° East; SGC2 29:18° North, 37:07° East; SGC3 05:00° North, 38:00° West; SGC4 75:76° North, 77:87° West. The SGC is determined by the physical performance of the Galileo SaR. Currently, the SGC includes also Iceland and Greenland. In addition, the Galileo SaR is available up to 85° covering part of the Arctic region. The SaR Galileo Service is provided to the search and rescue community under the MEOSAR program established by Cospas-Sarsat, complementing the existing LEOSAR and GEOSAR systems. The GEOSAR has a gap in the coverage of the high-latitude (e.g., Polar Regions), hence the SaR service provided by Galileo can extend the coverage area of the GEOSAR system providing a SaR service up to 85 degrees North with the current ground infrastructure. In addition, the GEOSAR system can receive beacons distress messages but it is not able to localize a beacon unless the location is encoded in the distress message. Differently from the GEOSAR system the LEOSAR system is able to localize a beacon, but the LEO satellites have a view of only a small part of the Earth at any given time, so there may be a delay in receiving the distress signal over LEOSAR. Currently five satellites in LEO have SaR device on board, and the typical time to locate a beacon is between half an hour and two hours at mid-latitudes. Also in this case, Galileo SaR service complements

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

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

In addition, the service provides further enhancements for Cospas-Sarsat beacons thanks to a return link transmission. The return link broadcasts a confirmation to the user that the distress message has been received. The Galileo Return Link Service was declared operational on January 21, 2020. It is considered a major upgrade compared to the existing system, which provides no feedback to users. The SaR/Galileo Return Link Service provides a means to send messages to distress beacons fitted with an active Galileo receiver, or to Galileo receivers integrated in devices contributing to the SaR mission. The SaR/Galileo Return Link Service is transmitted via the Galileo open service signals, broadcast in the E1 band. The message includes an acknowledgement service made of 2 types of acknowledgement messages: Acknowledgement Type-1: in this case the Return Link Message is sent autonomously by the Galileo system upon confirmation of the localization by the Cospas-Sarsat system. Acknowledgement Type-2: in this case the Return Link Message is sent by the Galileo system upon

70 request by an authorized third party entity. The latency between the transmissions of the Return Link Message within the Galileo Signal transmission from the Return Link Service Provider to the Galileo core infrastructure is lower than 15 minutes with a probability of 99%. The SaR return link evolution is a new proposed SaR service and needs to be discussed and accepted by Cospas/Sarsat. The proposal for the evolution of the return link includes additional services such as remote activation/deactivation of the beacon, possibility to change the transmission parameters and a short messaging service. A more detailed description of the capability of the return link evolution service is available in Annex 2.

5.2.3 Emergency Warning Service (EWS) A Galileo-based Emergency Warning Service will provide a warning to the population in case of emergency-related events such as fire, floods, and storms. The civil protection authorities from the Member States will take the decision to warn the population with the Galileo EWS. Considering the vast number of different events that can be considered for a warning, Galileo EWS will assign a priority level for each warning. The main information broadcast by the EWS will be: - Type of event: this information is fundamental information for both public and first responders to properly react in case of emergency. - Location / geographical coverage of the event: Galileo EWS will broadcast the location of the event over the area interested with a low latency (minutes). - Time of the event. - Basic guidance instructions. The architecture of the service is shown in Figure 31. The overall architecture includes: The authority in charge of taking the decision of issuing and alert. The authority should send the message (using a standardized format Common Altering Protocol (CAP)/XML) to the dedicated Galileo EWS infrastructure. Galileo Service Operator (GSOp) will then send the EWS message (at bit level) to the Galileo Ground Segment. Galileo ground stations will then uplink the EWS message to the Galileo satellites. Finally, Galileo satellites will broadcast EWS message to users equipped with a Galileo EWS compatible receiver in a specified area. At least two satellites have to broadcast the message over an area to ensure robustness to single satellite failures.

71

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

5.3 EGNOS inventory service The navigation system is composed of a variety of sensors, databases and other elements that for safety critical applications have to provide the quality with which navigation parameters are obtained. This parameter is usually identified as integrity, which is the measure of trust that can be placed in the correctness of the information supplied by a system (US Department of Defense et al. 2019). In several applications, integrity information is fundamental. Moreover, integrity requirements are the more stringent requirements for a navigation system in safety critical applications. GNSSs provide integrity information to the user via the navigation message, but this may not be timely enough for some applications. Hence, GNSS-based navigation for safety critical applications can be adopted only if an augmentation system is used. Among the augmentation systems currently available the one we focus are the Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS). These systems are wide-area differential augmentation systems, composed of a space segment and a network of ground stations placed at known positions to monitor the ranging signals of the satellite constellation. The European SBAS is EGNOS which through its SoL service disseminates integrity information related to GPS satellites. The elements composing the EGNOS ground infrastructure are the: monitoring Stations called Ranging Integrity Monitoring Stations (RIMS) for the collection and monitoring the of data obtained from GNSS satellites; then the control centres called Mission Control Centers (MCCs) configure EGNOS navigation messages; finally, Navigation Land Earth Stations (NLESs) send the message to the transponders hosted by the geostationary satellites. These elements of the system are connected using a communication network called EGNOS Wide Area Network (EWAN). The current EGNOS Space Segment includes transponders placed on board the Astra-5B (PRN 123), Astra SES-5 (PRN 136) and (test mode only) Inmarsat 4F2 Emea (PRN 126) geostationary satellites21. Considering the two operational EGNOS satellites, the satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude is shown in Figure 32. From the figure, it clearly emerges that the EGNOS coverage is limited to latitude lower than 72 degrees North. At higher latitude the elevation angle of the satellites is below ten degrees.

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

72

Figure 32: EGNOS satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude. EGNOS satellites visibility in the Arctic region is also affected by the orography. The impact of the orography is greater as the latitude is increasing (or the SBAS GEO satellite elevation angle is decreasing) (Magdaleno et al. 2019).

5.3.1 EGNOS Services Currently, EGNOS is able to provide corrections and integrity information for GPS signals over Europe, the following services are considered: EGNOS Open Service (OS): using this service a user is able to improve the positioning accuracy. The service broadcasts two type of corrections, slow and fast corrections. This allows the user to reduce the error sources affecting GPS signals. In particular, the corrections transmitted mitigate the ranging error sources related to satellite clocks, satellite position and ionospheric effects. The EGNOS OS is accessible free-of-charge in Europe to any user equipped with an appropriate GPS/SBAS compatible receiver. Safety of Life (SoL): for safety of life application, in addition to the enhanced accuracy EGNOS provides integrity information. The integrity is the measure of the trust that can be placed in the correctness of the information provided by a navigation system. Currently, the service supports civil aviation operations down to Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) minima; the system has been designed to be compliant with the ICAO Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for SBAS. The EGNOS SoL Service has been available since 2 March 2011.

5.3.1.1 EGNOS Open Service The service area of EGNOS OS is shown in Figure 33, the service area is enclosed in the green line. The coordinates of the four corners of the polygon are: - 72° North 40° East - 72° North 40° West - 20° North 40° East - 20° North 40° West

73

Figure 33: EGNOS Open Service coverage area.

In open sky condition (without obstacles), the ionosphere is the main error source for GNSS measurements. Although the magnitude of tropospheric and the ionospheric errors can be comparable, the variability of Earth’s ionosphere is much larger and more difficult to model. In order to mitigate ionospheric errors EGNOS broadcasts ionospheric corrections, which are derived from real-time ionospheric delay measurements obtained from a network of reference stations. The observables collected by the monitoring network are used to estimate the vertical delays and associated integrity bounds at the ionospheric grid points (IGPs) which are located 350 km above the surface of the Earth as defined in Figure 34. The EGNOS model optimises both accuracy and integrity by providing corrections for specific grid points in the European service area. Grid Ionospheric Vertical Delays (GIVDs) improve accuracy, and Grid Ionospheric Vertical Errors (GIVEs) guarantee integrity. In order to guarantee spatial and temporal coverage, the IGPs location has been chosen according to spatial variations in the ionospheric vertical delay during periods of high solar activity and the parameters are updated at least every five minutes. In Figure 34, the IGPs geographical distribution is shown; from the figure it can be noted that the grid covers the whole EU territory and part of the Arctic region. In addition, IGPs are coloured according to the GIVE values; specifically, the colour varies between dark green (ionospheric residual error lower than 3.6 m) and pink (ionospheric residual error equal to 45 m), the not monitored values are grey, finally the points where the correction should not be used are red coloured. An example of the GIVE values considering the EGNOS satellite with PRN 136 is reported in Figure 34.

74

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

The EGNOS SoL Service consists of signals for timing and positioning intended for most transport applications in different domains. The SoL service is based on integrity data provided through the EGNOS satellite signals. The main objective of the EGNOS SoL service is to support civil aviation operations. However, the SoL Service is also intended to support applications in a wide range of other domains such as maritime, rail and road. For civil aviation application, EGNOS can be used to support navigation in all phases of flight. However, the phase of flight with the most demanding requirements in terms of positioning accuracy and integrity is the approach. Different approach procedures are available: Precision Approaches (PA) use an instrument landing system which provides both lateral and vertical guidance on a stabilised continuous descent path. Non-Precision Approaches (NPA) use conventional navigation aids such as Non-Directional Beacon (NDB). VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance measuring equipment (DME) to bring the aircraft to a point where the runway is in view and a visual landing can be performed. The Approach Procedure with Vertical guidance (APV) improves safety with respect to non-precision approaches and provides improved access to airfields not equipped with precision approach and landing aids. Among the APVs, the Localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) is the highest precision approaches procedure currently available. These procedures are based on GNSS and its augmentations. Hence, EGNOS is a key enabler for LPV approaches. EGNOS-based procedures are already implemented in airports within the Arctic region. In particular, the number of LPV and LPV 200 foot minimum (LPV200) approaches in the Arctic region is shown in Figure 35. LPV-200 enables aircraft approach procedures that are operationally equivalent to CATI Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures. From the figure, a growing trend in the adoption of EGNOS-based procedure clearly emerges. Currently, Kirkenes Airport in Norway (69.72o North latitude) is the northernmost airport with active EGNOS-based procedures. New procedures will be set into operations in December 2020 for most of the airports in Norway between 70-72° N latitude (Hasvik, Berlevag, Båtsfjord, Vardo and Vadso). As a consequence of the increase of EGNOS coverage area to 72° North latitude announced in March 2019, most airports in Norway will have to set new operation procedures in December 2020. The growing number of airports using EGNOS-based procedure is also confirmed in Figure 36, where the number of airports exploiting EGNOS as a function of the year is shown. For the graph only airports above 60 degrees North are considered.

75

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

Omega+ is a nationwide project for the implementation of EGNOS-based procedure in Finland. The project focused on enhanced flight procedures for General Aviation, Business Aviation, Search and Rescue operations and Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) operations. During the project, new landing procedures for aircraft using EGNOS at specifically the procedures will be implemented at Pyhtää, Sodankylä and Varkaus airports. In addition, new landing procedures for helicopters using EGNOS will be developed at Helsinki University Hospital, Lapland Central Hospital and Kuopio University Hospital. The project is developed with the aims of:  Significantly enhance public security, emergency and health care services, especially in remote parts of the country  Increase flight safety, decrease emissions and environmental impact  Fostering new business opportunities more users in Scandinavia, e.g. airlines and flight schools. EWA (EGNOS Working Agreement) between Isavia and ESSP signed in December 2018 which is a Key enabler to formalize EGNOS SoL service in Iceland. The project allowed the first EGNOS LPV in Iceland at Húsavík (BIHU) became active May 2019. Eagle Air operator is generally very pleased with EGNOS operations at Husavik – benefits over procedures in difficult weather.

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

76 5.3.1.2 EGNOS V3 EGNOS V3 is the new generation of EGNOS, which will replace the current version 2 in operation since 2011. EGNOS V3 is currently under development and is foreseen to enter into service in 2024. V3 system architecture will be modular and upgradeable in time in order to progressively accommodate and support a very wide span of brand new GNSS services for various user communities. After the completion of the transition to V3, the V2 system will be decommissioned (European GNSS Agency (GSA) 2019a). Two versions of EGNOS V3 are foreseen: - V3.1, which is expected to ensure continuity of EGNOS augmentation of GPS L1 and improved ionospheric corrections; - V3.2, which will provide additional SBAS service capabilities through a new SBAS channel on L5, including augmentation of dual frequency GPS-Galileo. This version of the service will exploit the advantages of in-operation Galileo signals as well as new frequencies from an improved class of GPS satellites. Moreover the exploitation of the L5 lead to the improvement of the service robustness against errors and propagation delays caused by the ionosphere.

5.3.1.3 Integrity and ARAIM Currently, different approaches can be used to retrieve integrity information. The integrity is the measure of the trust that can be placed in the correctness of the information provided by a navigation system. GBAS involves the use of a ground infrastructure to compute and broadcast GNSS corrections. The main limitation of this approach is their coverage area; in order to fill this gap a possible solution is the adoption of algorithm implemented at receiver level, this type of approach is usually referred as Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM). These algorithms were developed for avionic applications and are based on GPS only. The availability of open signals on multiple frequencies pushed the modifications of the classical RAIM techniques. In 2004, an international agreement between European Union (EU) and United States (US) of America was signed to foster cooperation in the field of satellite navigation. The agreement established a working group, the Working Group-C (WG-C) which should support the development of SoL services based on GPS and Galileo (Working Group C-ARAIM Technical Subgroup. 2016). In this respect, a Technical Sub-Group (TSG) was established in 2010 with the goal to investigate and develop a new concept, the so called Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM). The service shall provide improved integrity, accuracy and continuity performance enabling flight phases precluded to classical RAIM. For integrity information ARAIM extends the coverage of the EGNOS SoL service which is provided up to 72 degrees North. ARAIM has a global coverage including the polar regions. Three modes of operations for ARAIM have been defined (Subgroup Working Group C-ARAIM 2015): H-ARAIM (Horizontal ARAIM), which will be available from 2025, Two for vertical navigation, offline and online V- ARAIM (Vertical ARAIM). ARAIM allow to compute the Horizontal Protection Level (HPL) and Vertical Protection Level (VPL). The global coverage provided by the ARAIM approach is shown in in Figure 37. The availability is the percentage of time when the conditions in terms of protection levels are met. The figure shows availability only greater than 99%. The worst scenario occurs at high latitudes whereas for middle latitude regions, the availability is greater than 99.9 %.

77

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

Summary of the EU Satellite navigation Capability in the Arctic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

79 6 Arctic SatCom challenges, needs and objectives

Due to its limited possibilities for land-based communication infrastructure: satellite communications (Satcom) is key enabler for civil and military missions in remote and harsh environments. However Satcom are mainly located on geostationary orbits, leading to some geographical coverage limitations (Figure 38). Satellites that are placed in the geosynchronous orbit are ideal for making repeating observations of a fixed geographical area (with a given longitude). However, areas beyond 70 degrees north and south are not covered. As a consequence, this crucial lack of adequate, autonomous, secure and cost effective means of electronic communications infrastructure is challenging particularly in the Arctic region where ground-infrastructure is limited or not enough reliable.

Figure 38: Orbit configuration and limitations over polar areas

80

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

6.1 EU SatCom Satellite communications (SatCom) services can be broadly divided into three categories22: 1. MilSatCom - Military SatCom. It is protected and guaranteed SatCom and it is generally provided by purely sovereign military systems. 2. GovSatCom – Governmental SatCom. This SatCom guarantee assured access by offering resilient and robust security traits, however it is less protected than MilSatCom. 3. ComSatCom – Commercial SatCom. It encompasses satellite communications procured on the commercial market on an as-needed and as-available basis. It is intended for broad variety of users. GovSatCom’s objective is to ensure reliable, secure and cost-effective civil and military satellite communication services for public authorities in EU and in Member States managing critical security missions and operations. The goal is also to enhance European autonomy and overcome fragmentation of demand through the use of affordable and innovative solutions in synergy with industrial players.23 GovSatCom is based on national capabilities of EU Member States and on commercial assets from both EU and non-EU countries. GovSatCom has three main use-case families (PwC 2018a): Surveillance, Crisis Management and Key Infrastructure monitoring. The user communities are further detailed in Figure 39. For Arctic region, the use-case families and user communities are narrowed down to those in Table 11.

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

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

81

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

Use-case Family User community National Actors EU Actors

Surveillance Maritime Surveillance and National Security EMSA, Europol, EFCA, control agencies, State fishery control agencies, Ports authorities, Coastguards

Crisis Management Maritime emergencies, MRCC and associated EMSA Military interventions rescure service providers,

Port authorities

Military interventions National military forces EEAS, Frontex, SatCen

Key infrastructure Institutional EEAS, ECHO field offices Management Communications

Operation of transport National ANSPs, Eurocontrol, ERTMS infrastructures

Operation of space ESA, EUMETSAT, GSA, infrastructure ESSP

6.1.1.1 Existing Satellite Communication Systems of GovSatCom in the Arctic Commercial Systems The PwC study (PwC 2018a) identified commercial systems which are used by EU governmental users (Table 12). These systems are used in the areas where GEO and MEO satellites provide coverage.

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

Satellite Type of system Frequencies Status Nationality Operator (Name)

Avanti GEO Ka, Ku Operational UK

Eutelsat GEO C, Ku, Ka Operational FR

Eutelsat – GEO Ku Planned FR Quantum

Globalstar LEO L, C, S Operational US (Covering partially the Arctic for IoT services)

Hispasat GEO C, Ku, Ka Operational ES

Inmarsat GEO L, Ka Operational UK

Europsat GEO S, Ka, Ku Planned UK

Iridium LEO Ka Operational US

82 Iridium Next LEO L, Ka Operational US

O3b MEO Ka Operational LUX

SES GEO C, Ku, Ka, X Operational LUX

Thuraya GEO, LEO C, L Operational UAE

For Arctic environment, those systems using GEO orbits are of limited use (generally up to 70 degrees north). Examining the characteristics of non-GEO systems, only Iridium Next (US-based Company) covers Arctic region entirely. Iridium has long history in serving users from the GovSatCom category. For Iridium system description, refer to section 6.1. It is expected that EU GovSatCom users will continue to rely on Iridium for communication in Arctic. Governmental Systems The governmental systems (listed in Table 13 belongs to the member states and serve primarily for MilSatCom. Some of the systems have dual-use payload which would allow its usages for GovSatCom. However, the technical details about the governmental systems are not available for general public. This makes the assessment for their suitability for GovSatCom in Arctic difficult. All governmental systems rely on GEO orbits, therefore their usage for northernmost regions are limited. Some systems which are close to the end of service are being replaced by newer platforms (for example, Spainsat).

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

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

83 communications to tactical and strategic government users operating in the Arctic region, including customers in the USA, Canada, Scandinavia and other Arctic regions24. The Norwegian government is currently procuring a dedicated HEO mission for providing broadband services (dual use). Date of launch: 2022/2023

Using LEO satellite mega constellations for GovSatCom The satellite mega constellations for broadband internet are starting to put their first satellites on orbits and are testing the first connections to users. Even though these systems are intended for wide public, the governmental and military users started to look at them as well. If the appropriate security and stability of the communication is guaranteed, these systems can provide opportunity for GovSatCom in terms of bandwidth and very low latency. For example, US Air Force has been testing SpaceX’s Starlink satellite broadband services and demonstrated download speeds of 610 megabits per second into the cockpit of a C-12J Huron twin- engine turboprop aircraft25. The issues to be solved include characterization of the network to make sure users can trust it. They have worked with multiple service providers including SpaceX, Iridium, OneWeb, Telesat and O3B to test system capabilities and to assess potential use. Furthermore, collaborations between service provides are being formed. For example, Iridium and OneWeb signed Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) to work together on combined services. MoU creates opportunities for companies to manufacture terminals which would be compatible with both systems and which would allow synergetic usage.26 Furthermore, OneWeb is considering the Arctic as a priority for their broadband connection. The provision of services is planned toward the end of 202027. If the reliability and security of this communications infrastructure are guaranteed, it can be seen as an opportunity for GovSatCom. However, one of the main players that were planning to have their service available in the Arctic in 2020, have gone bankrupt just at time of writing following the COVID-19 outbreak. Delays to establishing Arctic coverage may be expected. In late May 2020, USNORTHCOM that provides command and control of Department of Defense (DOD) homeland defense is asking Congress for $130 million to explore OneWeb’s and SpaceX’s capabilities in order to provide reliable and potentially cost-effective connectivity to Arctic platforms, installations and war fighters.

6.2 ARGOS The ARGOS system, operated by CLS/KINEIS (a subsidiary of CLS) is a Satellite Data Collection System with a global coverage, allowing collecting in-situ data with intrinsic Doppler location capability. The native ARGOS Positioning System measures the Doppler effect of the signal frequencies received by the satellite from the Argos transmitters. Thus, it allows GNSS-Free positioning and ensures the integrity of the mobile position. With an accuracy of up to 250 m, it represents a complementary service to classical GNSS positioning data collection. Indeed, in order to increase the positioning accuracy and increase the frequency of data collection, GNSS positions can also be transmitted via Argos (Figure 40, left). Data received by the satellites are retransmitted to regional stations in real time (~60 ground stations worldwide in the Argos System) and retransmitted to the processing centres and the users. Each Argos satellite allows receiving information from all Argos transmitters located within an approximate 5000 km satellite footprint (Figure 40, right).

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

84

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

6.2.1 Better coverage in the Polar Regions

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

With seven satellites in the system, the typical revisit Figure 41: SARAL Orbit tracks over the Arctic time over the Artic region is around 15 minutes in computed along a day. Orbits are represented average. using SAT-LAB.

Argos data in the Arctic

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

85 In the Arctic region (above 65°N latitude) 724 platforms with Argos transmitter are operational. The platforms include gliders, ice buoys, drifted or moored buoys, animals, ships... The number of platforms operational is indicated per sector in the list below. Key sectors and associated number of platforms: — Oceanography (53), — meteorology/hydrology (20), — sustainable management of fisheries (17), — wildlife monitoring (634)

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

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

6.2.2 ARGOS-4 & KINEIS Nanosatellites Constellation: the future of Argos In 2019-2020, two new satellites will complete the Argos satellite constellation:  ANGELS, the first ARGOS nanosatellite prototype (end of 2019),  And OceanSat-3, an Indian satellite embedded the first new generation Argos-4 payload (bi- directional capability, increased system capacity, more frequency bandwidths…).

In 2021-2023, important milestones will occur ensuring the continuity and major improvements in the Argos System for the upcoming decade:  Two more Argos-4 payloads to be launched on CDARS and MetOp-SG satellites (resp. in 2021 and 2023);

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

For the Arctic region the system revisit performance will allow to get a near-real time service and monitor key variables as mentioned in section 6.2 (current Argos system). The existing ability of the communication system to operate under harsh environment conditions will be reinforced thanks to additional features. Therefore, Argos-4 will further enhance its performance including fast processing low energy consumption algorithms, an on-board processing capacity, and the inclusion of a dedicated bandwidth for very low power transmitters.

6.3 Terrestrial and Satellite-based Broadband Internet Systems Internet connection in the Arctic remains a challenge due to lack of appropriate infrastructure and the cost of its installation. Low density of population makes the traditional internet connection via physical cables (copper cables, optical cables) economically unfeasible. Harsh climate poses another challenge on the infrastructure which must resist low temperatures, strong wind, snowpack and ice. Furthermore, the lack of skilled personnel being able to install and maintain the necessary infrastructure is another challenge to consider. With the development of fast internet via fiber cables and with coming 5G network it is crucial to overcome these challenges to keep Arctic far from digital divide. It this understood that fast (100 Mbit/s) and low latency (less than 100 ms) internet connection will be essential for developing of human activities in the Arctic. Benefits of broadband connection are clearly visible in economy, e-commerce, education, scientific research, trade and transportation, e-government, community involvement, public health, safety, and security. The available technologies have their pros and cons (Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group and Arctic Economic Council 2017). They are summarized in the Table 14 table below. Note that cons related to Satellite technology will be overcome in near future as discussed further on.

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

Technology Pros Cons Very fast and efficient with less signal High investment costs; time consuming, Optical Fiber degradation; highly resistant to lengthy deployment; susceptible to physical electromagnetic interference and low damage, such as accidental cutting; rate of bit error; scalable (wavelengths unidirectional light propagation requires can be turned on or off on demand); concurrent cables to be laid to achieve longevity once deployed and relatively bidirectional propagation of information. easy to replace or repair. Mobile Wireless More easily deployed than fix Signals are shared and thus can be degraded (3G, 4G, 4G/LTE, broadband; provides the convenience of at peak usage times; signal strength impacted 5G) mobile broadband access. by distance, weather, line-of-sight, and other external factors. In addition, with regard to 5G specifically, the technology is not yet ready for deployment. The ITU aims to finalize 5G standards and protocols by 2020.111 5G also requires high-speed terrestrial backhaul. Microwave Wireless backhaul alternative to copper Limited range compared to satellite; requires (Fixed Wireless) or fiber connections (less expensive, line of sight; may be subject to rain fade; easier deployment); lower installation bandwidth is shared. costs compared to buried cable systems; can transfer data at speeds of 1 Gbit/s. Terrestrial backbone and area networks Many existing satellites are geostationary Satellite are not needed; ability to connect (positioned over the equator) and service users across large regions; heavily degrades substantially at latitudes above utilized by the maritime industry; LEO 75 degrees north; expensive initial investment and other satellites with non- and maintenance; expensive end-user

87 geostationary orbits that are currently devices; signal degraded by weather and being developed and deployed could line-of-sight problems. provide the Arctic with broadband speeds of 50 Mbit/s. Copper (e.g., Rely on existing copper wires that are Speed depends on the length of the copper Digital already present in many locations line; upload speeds generally substantially Subscriber Line (though potentially less so in the Arctic lower than download speeds; slower than fiber (DSL)) region). (though VDSL and other developments increasing DSL speeds). Coaxial cable Rely on existing cable TV networks Internet use by multiple users simultaneously (via cable TV (lower deployment costs where can degrade service and slow speeds during networks) networks already exist); generally more peak hours; often not available in remote capable/efficient than traditional copper areas. telephone networks.

6.3.1.1 LEO Satellite Constellations The only system which can provide broadband internet to Arctic is the one provided by Iridium. The Iridium Next satellite constellation provides L-band voice and data coverage to satellite phones, pagers and integrated transceivers over the entire Earth surface.28 The constellation consists of 66 active satellites in orbit, required for global coverage, and additional spare satellites to serve in case of failure. Satellites are in LEO at a height of approximately 485 mi (781 km) and inclination of 86.4°. Orbital velocity of the satellites is approximately 17,000 mph (27,000 km/h). Satellites communicate with neighbouring satellites via Ka band inter-satellite links. Each satellite can have four inter-satellite links This design means that there is excellent satellite visibility and service coverage especially at the North and South poles28. Reaching across land, sea, and air, including the Polar Regions, Iridium® solutions are ideally suited for industries such as maritime, aviation, government/military, land mobile, and the internet of things (IoT) 28. The layout of the Iridium Next constellation is shown on Figure 42.

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

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

88

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

6.3.1.2 LEO Satellite Mega-Constellations Important note (April 2020): Just before finalization of this report, the space industry and programmes were affected by economic consequences of measures against the spread of coronavirus. Some companies were affected only marginally, while others were affected heavily. The most striking and unfortunate case was the bankruptcy of OneWeb30 – the company whose LEO satellite constellation was supposed to start cover Arctic region with broadband internet in late 2020. This is now unrealistic given the need to re-structure the company and to execute the sale process. The OneWeb is used in subsequent text for explanation of the concept of mega-constellations and some technical parameters of their satellite constellation are discussed. Given the current situation of the company, some information can be outdated. The concept of LEO satellites mega constellation lies in placing large number (from 100s to 1000s) of small satellites (150-200 kg) on LEO orbits (from approx. 500 to 1000 km). High number of satellites in one orbit and high number of orbits (of different geometrical characteristics) will ensure satellite visibility from practically any spot in the Earth (including Polar Regions). The signal from user terminal will go via satellite (or even more satellites connected with optical link) into the ground-based “gateways” which will be connected with terrestrial internet. In order to maintain instant connection of the user terminal to internet, the gateway must be in Line of Sight (SoL) of a satellite (or satellites). This requirement is crucial especially for Arctic region. The network of gateways must be extended as far north as possible to be in SoL or satellites must be equipped with inter-satellite optical communication so that signal can be relayed via satellites into a gateway in SoL. For illustration of the general system architecture, the OneWeb31 constellation will be used. Other constellations are using similar design; their differences will be discussed further on. The design of OneWeb broadband system is depicted on Figure 43. The description of each elements of the system including Arctic-related challenges are as follows.

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

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

89

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

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

Figure 44. Various types of user terminals.32

32 OneWeb Global Access, ITU International Satellite Symposium 2016

90

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

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

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

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

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

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

91

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

92 6.3.1.3 Future Satellite Mega-Constellations with Arctic Coverage Until now the main infrastructure used for satellite-based broadband connection were geostationary satellites (GEO). Since they are positioned over the equator, the direct line of sight (LoS) which is necessary for connection is very low over the horizon or LoS cannot be established at all. Another limitation is the latency of signal which is not compatible with current and future (5G) broadband requirements. In recent years, the concepts of placing high number of satellites (mega constellation) on LEOs has been studied and brought to maturity. Advancements in telecommunication technologies (including inter-satellite links and phase-arrays antennas for spacecraft and ground terminals), satellite manufacturing (including mass production of small satellites) and launching capabilities brought the concept of LEO broadband satellites into operational and economic viability. If successful, these systems will provide broadband internet into remote areas including Arctic. LEO orbits (up to 2000 km), optical links between satellites and sufficient number of ground stations with internet connection (gateways) will ensure fast broadband connection (in the range of 50 Mbit/s) with low latency (less than 100 ms).

A total of 11 companies have applied to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deploy large-constellations in non-geostationary satellite orbits (NGSO) as a means to provide broadband services. These new designs range from 2 satellites, as proposed by Space Norway (see section 6.3.1.4), to thousands of satellites, as proposed by SpaceX. Due to the large number of satellites in these constellations, the name “mega constellations” was coined to refer to these new proposals (del Portillo, Cameron, and Crawley 2019). As far as mega constellations following 3 systems are in advanced stage of deployment (some satellites were already launched or are about to be launched): OneWeb (UK), Starlink (SpaceX, US), Telesat LEO (Telesat, Canada). Very recently, Amazon (US) has released details about its plan to deploy 3236 broadband satellite system. However more detailed analysis of usability of mega constellation for Arctic concentrates on three former systems. Basic characteristics of three systems and company info are summarized in Table 15. Please note that some parameters (number of satellites, orbits, number of gateway station) can be changed in future.

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

OneWeb Starlink Telesat LEO (https://www.oneweb.world/)

Number of 650 4,425-11,943 117-512 Satellites

Orbit 18, 49 satellites per plane with in-orbit 3 orbital shells Polar and inclined descriptions spares (83 inclined orbits): orbits, 1000 km 550 km (1600 satellites) altitude Polar orbits, 1200 km altitude 1150 km (2800 satellites), 340 km (7500 satellites)

Approx. Number 70 123 42 of gateway stations

Expected Customer demo in 2020, commercial Initial commercial Global service in beginning of service in 2021, operation in 2020, 60 2023, two prototypes service satellites launched in May launched in 2018 First 6 satellite launched in February 2019 2019

Owner, country OneWeb, UK SpaceX, US Telesat, CA

93 Satellite Airbus, plant located in Florida (US) Space X Airbus with SSTL, producer Maxar, with Thales Alenia Space (TBC by end of 2019)

Investors SoftBank (lead investor), Airbus, Space X Public Sector Pension bharti, Coca-Cola, grupo Salinas, Investment Board Hughes, Intelsat, Maxar, , Qualcomm, (37%), Loral Space Virgin, Rwanda (63%), Investment from Canadian Government

Estimated Up to 400 Mbps down/30 Mbps up Up to 1 Gbps Up to 1 Gbps Internet (user terminals) Throughput

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

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

94 Based on the simulation of LoS provided by del Portillo et al. (2019), the coverage of Arctic is sufficient. All three constellations will have several satellites visible from ground gateway (LoS) if these are located in proper location in the arctic. Furthermore, inter-satellite link deployed by Telesat and Starlink will allow more flexibility in location of gateways. Figure 49 shows simulated number of satellites in LoS in different latitudes. Looking at the number of satellites between 66.5˚ (polar circle) and 85˚ N and the location of land mass, it will be feasible to place enough gateways to cover the whole Arctic. The mega constellation will allow land, sea and air connection to broadband (fiber-like) internet connectivity in the Arctic. They will start to provide the service from 2021 onwards.

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

6.3.1.4 Future Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission (ASBM) - Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) satellites - HEOSAT Two satellites will be launched late 2022 to a HEO orbits by Space X in late 2022 with the aim of being operational in 2023. The satellites will be built by Northrop Grumman and will be operated by Space Norway HEOSAT AS (subsidiary of Space Norway owned by Norwegian Government) in cooperation with Inmarsat, Norwegian Ministry of Defence and Kongsberg Satellites Services (KSAT, Tromso). The satellites will provide full mobile broadband coverage to civilian and military users in the Arctic. The system is scheduled to be operational for at least 15 years with possibility to use also geostationary satellites (where available). The payload will include military payload for the US Defence Departments and the Norwegian Ministry of Defence and commercial capacity for Space Norway. The two satellites will be incorporated to Inmarsat’s Global Xpress geostationary constellation which is being built. The constellation will have user throughput of 50 Mbit/s downlink and 5 Mbit/s uplink. The main customers using the system are/will be defence governmental users, aviation, maritime, energy and enterprise. To operate the system, users must have terminal (antenna) which will provide connection to internet via the Inmarsat network infrastructure.

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

95 Summary of Satellite communications (SatCom) Capability in the Arctic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of the main SATCOM systems with Arctic coverage.

97 7 Arctic SSA challenges, needs and objectives

Ionospheric effects can be a major source of disruption to GNSS signals. Prediction of such effects is crucial in particular when high accuracy positioning is needed for Aviation or maritime sectors. Europe capability regarding the Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) of objects in Earth orbit is operated by the radar TIRA. It is a unique system that offers space agencies all over the world (outside the USA) the possibility to measure the orbit with high precision or produce a high resolution image of objects such as satellites. The system is therefore used to gain precise measurements of space debris, prevent evasive manoeuvres for operative satellites or create an image of an object that has gone out of control. This includes technical faults or the uncontrolled re-entry of satellites into the Earth's atmosphere. At European level, the EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association) operates three incoherent scatter radar systems, at 224 MHz, 931 MHz in Northern Scandinavia and one at 500 MHz on Svalbard, used to study the interaction between the Sun and the Earth as revealed by disturbances in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. The EISCAT radars are also used for continuous monitoring of the LEO debris. The radars are part of the European Space Agency’s SSA Programme. The European Commission-funded Galileo Ionosphere Prediction Service (IPS) to monitor ionospheric activity and inform GNSS users in good time of an upcoming event that could disrupt GNSS signals and applications. A prototype was delivered early 2019 to monitor and forecast the ionospheric activity (https://ips.telespazio.com/). The main prediction products include the monitoring of the Sun activity, Coronal Mass Ejection (CME), Total Electron Content (TEC) and scintillation. For the operational users positioning error and loss of lock are provided. With regard to the Arctic region, developments are currently on-going at JRC to enhance the IPS and extent the availability of products in the Polar Regions. JRC is investigating the possibility of using an analysis of the TEC available within Global Ionospheric Maps (GIM). In particular, the improvements of the IPS will include a now casting product of the TEC. Monitoring of the vertical TEC (VTEC) is given in Figure 50.

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

98 8 Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and satellite communications in the Arctic

The four components of the EU Space programme: Copernicus for the EO, Galileo for the Global Navigation Satellite system, GovSatCom for the satellite communication systems and the Space Situational awareness are interrelated. Several EO satellites that are placed in LEOs are equipped with GNSS receivers that allow precise orbit determination and that are used for high precision applications such as altimetry. Communications is essential in the functioning of EO satellites. Until now, EO satellites are able to downlink information while in direct line of sight with a ground station. However, they do not benefit from a connectivity and storage of information in-between nodes. Some dedicated ground stations are available in the Arctic like Kiruna or Svalbard, but specific users may

require more systematic data collection and fast visualization for high-resolution sea ice maps and to ensure safer navigation.

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

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

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

99

The Copernicus Arctic Regional ReAnalysis (CARRA)36 will cover the period from July 1997 to June 2021 (24 years). It will be performed with the HARMONIE-AROME numerical weather prediction system at 2.5 km horizontal mesh using a 3-dimensional variational assimilation scheme for the upper air analysis and a three-hourly update frequency. The reanalysis production will be carried out at the high- performance computing facility of ECMWF. The reanalysis products will be made available to the public at the end of the project in 2021. This dedicated Arctic reanalysis will use global reanalysis data from ERA5 as boundary forcing, and with its 2.5 km mesh provide more local detail than the coarser resolution products of the ERA5 global reanalysis. The ERA5 global reanalysis is currently a good example of synergy assimilating an increased number of satellite data including GNSS radio occultation data (see section 8.2 for more details on the GNSS RO technique) and Copernicus products to provide analysis of atmospheric states and provide improved surface state, snow and ice parametrisation, sea states. An example of seasonal temperature anomaly over the Arctic region is depicted in Figure 52.

Figure 52: Surface air temperature anomaly for winter, spring, summer and autumn 2018 relative to the respective seasonal averages for the period 1981-2010. Winter values relate to December 2017 - February 2018. Data source: ERA5. Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)/ECMWF.

8.2 GNSS Radio Occultation The space-based GNSS RO technique scans the atmosphere vertically at fine resolution (close to 300 meter in the troposphere) by precisely measuring the delay between a GNSS transmitter and a GNSS receiver aboard a Low Earth Orbiter, when the former is setting below or rising above the Earth limb.

36 http://www.umr-cnrm.fr/aladin/IMG/pdf/xiaohua_yang_asm2019_carra_.pdf

100 The standard thermodynamic products are extracted from the excess delay induced by the atmosphere at different layers. These observations have also sharper weighting functions in the vertical compared to radiances and provide good vertical resolution properties. The bending angle is the parameter which is assimilated in the NWP models. The RO measurements brought significant improvements in forecast quality (Anthes et al. 2008; Cardinali 2009) and in atmosphere reanalyses (Poli, Healy, and Dee 2010; A. J. Simmons and Poli 2015) because they complement the information provided by satellite radiances and therefore allowed bringing a superior vertical resolution. GPS-RO can be assimilated without bias correction. Therefore, they are able to anchor the bias correction of radiance measurements. The ability of GNSS RO to be assimilated without any bias correction is a strong asset in the context of numerical weather forecasting context as well as for re- analysis. For the Arctic, GNSS-RO data are a key asset for climate monitoring and for ionospheric research. The various on-going and future missions are detailed at European and International level (see below). An overview of the full set of GNSS-RO mission is shown in Figure 53.

101

Figure 53: Timeline of the GNSS radio occultation missions. Source: Axel von Engeln (Eumetsat, May 2020).

8.2.1 European missions The operational RO missions that are notable for the Arctic region are provided by dedicated payloads on board Terra-SAR, MetopB, MetopC (GRAS receiver). From the research side, Paz is a Spanish EO and reconnaissance satellite launched on 22 February 2018, it is an x-band SAR based on the TerraSAR-X platform. The ROHP-PAZ experiment (IEEC, JPL, UCAR, NOAA, Hisdesat) allows to measure the phase delay due to refraction during occultation between GPS and LEO. The occulted signal is measured in two orthogonal polarization that, by processing, can also provide equivalent information as in circular polarization. This is used to generate the ordinary radio-occultation sounding, and disseminated in NRT under agreements with NOAA; the linear ones are affected by large drops of heavy rain. For the first time, occulting signals of the GNSSs

102 have been acquired at two polarizations from a Low Earth Orbiter, and it shows that they sense heavy precipitation and frozen hydrometeors (Cardellach et al. 2019; 2014). Tech-Demosat 1 one of the UK’s national satellites provides demonstration of payloads in operational conditions support the monitoring of radio occultation events. In the near future Sentinel-6 (planned launch 2020) will also have a GNSS radio-occultation the Triple- G receiver (GPS, Glonass) whose primary mission objective is dedicated to atmospheric measurements.

8.2.2 International missions Spire is the only commercial Radio Occultation producer using Galileo signals until now, distribution of the commercial data to the users are still all under discussion. The Chinese Feng-Yun -3 satellite (CMA) which is part of a series of eight operational meteorological satellites has on board a dual frequency GPS/Beidou receiver developed for GNSS RO studies. The programme lifetime is operational since 2008 with a 10-year lifetime expectancy. GRACE-FO a joint US/German mission (NASA/DLR) launched in June 2018 has also on board a GNSS- RO payload the so-called Tri-G receiver (acquiring GPS, Galileo and Glonass signals). The mission designed for research purposes is not providing RO data for assimilation for now. In addition, the recent launch in June 2019 of the COSMIC-2 constellation missions (US/Taiwan) will enhance the Radio Occultation capacity worldwide but with coverage centred on the equatorial region.

8.3 GNSS Reflectometry (GNSS-R) GNSS-R is a low-cost passive remote sensing space technique. The payload does not contain a transmitter which allows making it small enough to be installed on a microsatellite. Generally, the spaceborne GNSS-R payload consists of one or two nadir-oriented LHCP antenna, a zenith-oriented RHCP antenna and a specialized GNSS-R receiver. Signals of Opportnity (SoOp) using existing navigation satellite systems are used to retrieve a large range of measurements: surface soil moisture (Chew et al. 2016), ocean surface winds (Clarizia et al. 2016; G. Foti et al. 2015; Giuseppe Foti et al. 2017; Ruf and Balasubramaniam 2018), sea ice thickness, altimetry (Cardellach et al. 2004; Clarizia et al. 2016), sea ice cover and wind speed over sea surface. All those measurements are relevant for the Arctic users.

The UK Tech-Demosat 1 mission (UK TDS-1) was designed by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. The satellite was launched in 2014, the specificity of the orbit of TechDemosat-1 with those of GPS satellites allow to get high spatio-temporal resolution and capture the dynamic of sea ice even close to the North pole. A sea ice detection algorithm using TDS-1 GNSS-R data over the Arctic has been developed by Alonso-Arroyo, Zavorotny, and Camps (2017) to detect sea ice presence over the Arctic with a very strong probability of detection (97%). Sea ice precise altimetry can reach a precision of 4-5 cm with an infra kilometric resolution (time intregration <20ms) was demonstrated by Li et al. 2017. Surface characterization and distinction between Figure 54: Surface characterization from GNSS- reflectometry (TechDemosat-1) over the Arctic region for open water (in blue) and sea ice (in red) from the August and maximum extent in 2016. Red displays a GNSS-R using TDS-1 is represented in Figure 54 sea ice assignment and blue an open water assignment. (Cartwright, Banks, and Srokosz 2019). The black shaded area represents transition between sea ice and water during the month using the in the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative product (Toudal Pedersen et al. 2017). From (Cartwright et al. 2019)

103 Recently the GNSS-R technique has also shown its capacity in providing wind field measurement with the NASA CYGNSS mission (equatorial only coverage) and studies are on-going to assess the benefits of GNSS-R data in weather forecasting models. GNSS-R data assimilation experiment have been conducted in the framework of the OSI SAF 37. Conventional ground-based GNSS antenna used for tectonic studies can also be used to retrieve sea level changes using reflected signals. Kim and Park 2019 recently measured sea level rise in the Arctic region around a recent PBO Alaskan station in St Michael (AT01). The signals transmitted by the Galileo satellites were used and allowed to improve the quantity and quality of the GNSS observations to retrieve sea level changes. The Center for Orbit Determination in Europe’s Multi-GNSS Experiment final orbit and satellite clock products were used to minimize the satellite orbit error.

GNSS-R technology on-board cubesats to complement Sentinels FFSCAT a mission promoted by ESA EO Directorate including a constellation of small satellites (6 Units Cubesats) will provide data on Earth’s ice and soil moisture content to complement the Sentinels satellites and contribute to the Copernicus Land and Marine Environment services. Launch is expected in June 2020. The mission includes a GNSS-R payload tracking both GPS and Galileo signals. This mission was awarded the 1st Prize of the 2017 Copernicus Masters competition in 2019.

8.4 Automatic Identification System (AIS) AIS was developed in the 1990s, in the first place as a ship anti-collision system. An AIS transponder carried by a ship automatically transmits very short messages on VHF containing fixed information such as ship identity, geographic position, speed, heading, and more. The transponder also receives the messages from surrounding ships in sight. The received data are displayed on a screen on board the ship to create awareness of the nearby traffic, and to warn for impending collisions. Furthermore, receivers are installed on shore to monitor the ship traffic along the coast within VHF line-of-sight, which can be typically 30-40 nautical miles. AIS carriage is now internationally mandated by IMO rules for the larger ships (>300 tonnes). Some jurisdictions have even stricter requirements, e.g. in the EU all fishing vessels >12 m must have AIS. Smaller ships may voluntarily carry AIS, the so-called Class B AIS. Technical requirements are set globally by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Although not originally designed for that, the AIS messages can also be picked up in space. As an AIS receiver is small and low-cost, it is relatively easy to put one on a satellite. Since 2008, several companies (exactEarth, ORBCOMM, SpaceQuest) have deployed AIS receivers on satellites as a commercial venture, and also governments (Norway) and Universities have flown AIS satellites. Even a single satellite gives global coverage of ship traffic (at least of the AIS-carrying part), but for a useful update rate, a constellation is necessary. Operators like exactEarth and ORBCOMM now have constellations of tens of satellites, and Spire plans to have more than 120 by end of 2020 (88 satellites are currently in orbit), providing near-continuous monitoring of the global (AIS-reporting) ship traffic. In order to have the data available in real-time, a network of ground stations is needed and/or inter-satellite data links. The extent to which a single satellite covers the Arctic depends on the inclination of its orbit – some AIS receivers are in low orbits, giving high update rates over the low latitudes but not covering the poles. But most constellations cover the Arctic very well. Picking up AIS signals is not EO; it is probably more correctly classified as SIGINT, signals intelligence. Signals are picked up and decoded that were not intended to be received by the listener. AIS reception in space is not as good as on the surface, due to long distance, horizontal emission by the ships (both leading to low signal strength in space) and the presence of too many emitters at the same time in the satellite footprint (which is much larger than the area in line-of-sight seen from a ground- based receiver). The latter effect can lead to saturation and complete blindness in very busy seas like the Mediterranean, North Sea or South China Sea. Many countries have a network of coastal AIS receivers that monitor the ship traffic out to some 40 nautical miles, with a fidelity that is higher than

37 http://www.osi-saf.org/?q=content/gnss-r-processing-and-nwp-assimilation

104 what is obtained from satellite. The Arctic does not have such coastal networks. On the other hand, the ship density is not so high in the Arctic to lead to saturation. AIS may reveal illegal behaviour such as illegal fishing, incursion, transhipments or smuggling. In order to flag suspicious / potentially illegal behaviour, the AIS tracks must be analysed. But malicious operators are known to switch off their AIS transponder. Satellite imagery, in particular SAR, may be used to find them anyway. However, a SAR image will show all ships, with and without AIS, innocent and illegal (down to a certain size). Combining the ship detections from a SAR image with AIS is therefore a powerful tool to flag those ships that are not visible on AIS and could be suspicious. To properly correlate a SAR detection with an AIS position, they need to be from the same time, which is generally not the case as the SAR satellites and the AIS satellites will pass at different times. The ship tracks therefore need to be interpolated for the SAR-AIS correlation, which introduces uncertainties especially for erratically moving ships (fishing ships) and large time differences. Most ideal is when a SAR satellite also carries an AIS receiver, so that both measurements are simultaneous.

8.4.1 European missions Norway flies a series of dedicated small AIS satellites under the name AISSat. It also flies the NORAIS series but those are on the ISS and do not cover the Arctic. AISSat-1 is a Norwegian nanosatellite, which carries an experimental spacecraft-based Automatic Identification System (AIS) sensor in low-Earth orbit as a means of tracking maritime assets. The satellite launched in 2010 has proved to be a very good tool for surveillance in remote high latitude areas. Coupled with ice information and vessel data the AIS-sat can be of significant value for better understanding of ice distribution, vessel performance, as well as for logistic and economical studies (Kjerstad 2011). Its primary mission is to demonstrate the feasibility and performance of space-based Automatic Identification System (AIS) detection from low-Earth orbit as a means of tracking maritime assets, and the integration of space-based AIS data into a national maritime tracking information system. Given the great success of AISSat-1, the completion of the AISSat-2 satellite, and the need for at least three operational space-based AIS assets, Norway initiated the AISSat-3 project. All three AIS satellites working in tandem will increase coverage, shorten revisit times, and provide natural redundancy for space-based AIS observation under direct control by Norway. NorSat-1 was launched in 2017 it carries both, an AIS transponder and scientific instruments. The satellite allows investigating solar radiation, space weather and detecting ship traffic. A second multi- payload satellite, NorSat-2, was launched together with NorSat-1. In addition to AIS, it carries a VHF Data Exchange System (VDES) transceiver. This new technology system will enable a wider seamless data exchange for the maritime community. Future AIS missions are planned with the launch of Norsat- 3 (launch planned in 2020) and NorSat-4 microsatellites. The primary objective of the NorSat-3 mission is to secure the long-term space-based AIS operational capability of the Norwegian Coastal Administration. The secondary objective is to demonstrate the operational capability of a ship navigation radar detector (NRD).

8.4.2 International Missions

ORBCOMM flies 1638 “OG2” satellites, and a few older satellites, in LEO with AIS receivers and uses a network of 16 ground stations. They receive 28M AIS messages daily, 86% with an average latency of less than one minute, from almost 300k different AIS transponders. The primary task of the OG2 satellites is low-latency M2M communication of short messages and not only AIS. However, only the southern part of the Arctic is covered (Figure 55).

38 For all these constellation the exact number of satellites changes over time as new ones are added and old ones go off line

105

Figure 55: Final expected OG1 and OG2 satellite footprints—complete global coverage. Image © ORBCOMM All Rights Reserved, 2016.

An additional constellation worth mentioning is that of exactEarth, which has 60 AIS payloads in orbit, most of them carried on Iridium Next satellites. The constellation covers entirely the Arctic region , as shown in Figure 56.

Figure 56: exactEarth satellite constellation.

Finally, Spire has 88 satellites AIS satellites in orbit. Besides AIS the satellites integrate payloads to carry out radio occultation measurements for weather, and ADS-B for air traffic monitoring.

106

8.4.3 Combined SAR-AIS missions The following SAR satellites carry an AIS payload, which provides a very good maritime surveillance capacity as explained above:  Paz (AIS payload from exactEarth)  Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM)  Future: Sentinel-1C and D

8.5 Navigation / Precise Orbit Determination Another existing synergy of strong interest for the Arctic region is the use of GNSS data coming from Space borne receivers for a wide range of applications. All the sentinels have on board GNSS receivers. The Copernicus programme is releasing Sentinel GNSS RINEX files and the other ancillary files to support the scientific community involved in many geodetic applications. The possibility of delivering the Sentinels GNSS data will maximise the missions’ return and become a reference for GNSS processing. The use of precise orbit determination products in relation with the Arctic user needs are summarized hereafter: Ionosphere characterization through dual-frequency GPS measurements that information about the TEC (Total Electron Content) in the ionosphere Gravity Field modelling thanks to the evaluation of the time-variable part of the gravity field Geodesy in a broad sense since the inclusion of LEO measurements into global GNSS processing may improve global parameters determination The GNSS data are available on the Sentinels GNSS Rinex Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/gnss/).

8.6 Internet Of Things (IoT) Missions

8.6.1 STEAM – Ships’s Sulfur Trails Emissions Aerial Measurements This ESA feasibility study is intended to assess the feasibility and sustainability of a technique bringing into play Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) and satellite technologies. The STEAM service is dedicated to the monitoring of gas emission (SO2, CO2, NOx) in the ship exhaust using an RPAS equipped with appropriate gas sensors. The final product of the service is information on the fuel sulphur content for each ship which is checked and allows addressing the needs of the Maritime Authorities in charge of the enforcement of the ship emission regulations. The service uses two space assets: the GNSS satellites for geo-positioning the RPAS the Iridium satellites for real time communication. It allows collecting the gas emission records in real time at the ground.

8.6.2 Argos and Kinéis (CLS/CNES) As mentioned in section 6.2, Argos with currently 7 satellites in operation (3 additional one by 2021) and Kinéis that will have 25 dedicated nanosatellites compatible with Argos will ensure an intermittent connectivity with a global coverage. The future Kinéis constellation will have a revisit time below 20 minutes globally. Both satellite missions will ensure localization and data collection from Internet of Things (IoT) light and low consumption (200 mW – 1W / transmission) terminals. Small data amount can be transmitted: the channels used for sending and receiving Argos-3 data have now broadband capabilities (4.8 Kbit/second). Higher data transmission rates in the range of up to 10 Kilobytes per day per beacon are foreseen with Kinéis. Argos/Kinéis has a synergetic capacity in achieving communications of environmental parameters through different type of device (buoys, weather stations) and for various applications (e.g animal tracking, ship monitoring). All those applications improve the connectivity of local Arctic communities and are needed for global monitoring.

107

Summary of Synergistic uses of EO, navigation and SatCom in the Arctic

This section analyses some key examples through innovative techniques that use several elements of the EU space programme allowing to best meet the specific challenges of the Arctic region. Dedicated weather products like the ECMWF European Arctic reanalysis products are computed using GNSS radio occultation data and Copernicus products to provide analysis of atmospheric states and provide improved surface state, snow and ice parametrisation, sea states. Specific innovative techniques such as GNSS RO or reflectometry through Signals of Opportunity are presented and prove to be of valuable interest for diverse applications (climate monitoring, ionospheric research, altimetry, hydrology, sea ice monitoring…). AIS signals that can be classified as signals intelligence are essential to provide global coverage of ship traffic, monitoring of illegal fishing, ice distribution. Dedicated nanosatellites missions like the Norwegian AISSat-1 provides surveillance in remote high latitude areas, some others like Nor-Sat-1 and 2 combine AIS and also embarks new technology system with VHF transceivers on board providing seamless data exchange. Looking to longer term benefits for the Arctic another synergistic example of interest mentioned is the Precise Orbit determination brought by the GNSS data notably on board the Sentinels satellites and that provide the Arctic users with better ionosphere characterization, gravity field monitoring and in geodesy more broadly.

Example of synergies at service and infrastructure level between the different EU space programme’s elements: Copernicus, GALILEO/EGNOS, GovSatCom and SSA.

108 9 Societal Impact Assessment

9.1 Methodology In this section the links between satellite systems and the potential benefits on society have been identified, with a focus in the Arctic on the synergies between the elements of the EU Space Programme (including EO, Communication, Navigation and Space Weather). This step is based on a conceptual framework to link observing systems with societal benefits which was designed in a recent impact assessment study on societal benefits of Arctic observing systems (Dobricic et al. 2018). The proposed framework combines two well-known methodologies: Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic.

9.1.1 Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic Value Tree Analysis (VTA) was firstly introduced by the Institute for Defense Analyses-Science and Technology Policy Institute (IDA-STPI) United States National Civil EO Assessments as well as for a needs assessment conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The VTA methodology relies on the expert domain knowledge. Its scope is to develop a logical description of the structure connecting policy actions with societal benefits. It provides a hierarchical description of the process leading to societal benefits. The bottom of the hierarchy contains observing systems and the top of the hierarchy wide areas of societal benefits that arise directly or indirectly form observing systems. Each tree consists of a hierarchically containing Observing Systems (OS), Key Products, Services and Outcomes (KPSOs), which further links to Key Objectives (KO). KOs are connected to societal benefit sub-areas that form SBAs (Figure 57). In January 2017 IDA-STPI and Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) organized a workshop to develop an international Arctic Observations Assessment Framework, defining the major Social Benefit Areas (SBAs) requiring observational capacity in the Arctic. During the workshop the experts defined 12 SBAs which are associated with four focus areas, Economy, Environment, People and Climate (IDA-STPI and SAON 2017): 1. Disaster Preparedness 2. Environmental Quality 3. Food Security 4. Fundamental Understanding of Arctic Systems 5. Human Health 6. Infrastructure and Operations 7. Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Processes 8. Natural Resource 9. Resilient Communities 10. Sociocultural Services 11. Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and Processes 12. Weather and Climate

109

Figure 57: Sequential logical steps of the VTA and IL methodologies

Each SBA contains a number of key sub-areas, which in turn contain a number of KOs and these are further divided into KPSOs. One observation system, such as a satellite product, can contribute to one or several KPSOs, and furthermore to several KOs and SBAs. Thus, any observational system can be evaluated and compared by integrating their potential contributions over the twelve SBAs.

The Intervention Logic (IL) methodology builds a logical link between the problems that needs to be tackled, or the objective that needs to be pursued, the underlying drivers of the problem and the action to address the problem and achieve the objective. The action may represent any intervention and, in particular, it may be the policy necessary to address societal requirements. IL consists of eight sequential steps: Challenges, Needs, Objectives, Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Results and Impacts. In this context inputs are the consequence of the previous requirements and they may produce activities and outputs that further may contribute to results and impacts. By applying IL it is possible to plan, organize and evaluate impacts that should meet the initial challenges and needs. In the IL context investments in OSs correspond to Inputs. The Activities and Outputs are improved products using observations like more accurate weather forecasts, corresponding to KOs and KPSOs, while SBAs arise from the Results and Impacts that follow from Outputs (Figure 57). IL is a part of Better Regulation Tools of the EC that aims on ensuring that EC policy proposals, implementations and monitoring reach the goals at minimum cost and deliver maximum benefits to the society. While VTA provides a consistent approach for the evaluation of societal benefits across the 12 SBAs, IL further includes descriptions of other steps in the policy process. The additional components

110 are represented by challenges, needs and objectives that motivate investments into observing systems. These steps may, for example, represent environmental pressures due to climate change in the Arctic. Unlike VTA which does not consider the motivation for developing a value tree, IL may logically explain how investments in OSs respond to these pressures by contributing to societal benefits. The present study will combine the two approaches by using the existing Arctic Observations Assessment Framework developed by the VTA methodology and linking each step in it to the most appropriate step in the IL methodology. In this way the study will build on the existing and generally accepted VTA methodology for evaluating societal benefits arising from the Arctic observing systems, and in addition it will provide description of general conditions in the Arctic motivating the application of observing and communication systems by applying a methodology that is used by EC in a large spectrum of policies.

9.1.2 Information collection Information on societal benefits arising from observing systems in the Arctic is collected during a structured workshop organized in November 2017 in Brussels. The workshop gathered together 18 experts representing the major providers of environmental information and important stakeholders in the Arctic: SAON, ESA, EU-Polarnet, INTAROS, Permafrost, Mercator Ocean, ECMWF, WGMS, WMO, ICES, BlueAction, WEMC, ICE-ARC, STPI, FMI, IASC, CAFF and ISAC-CNR. Most of the organizations involved represent public entities or international organizations representing different stakeholders. The use of information from observing systems by private companies was assessed implicitly from representatives of international organizations and data providers. Starting from the Arctic Observations Assessment Framework developed by the STPI and SAON this workshop identified several case studies and produced value trees linking KPSOs with SBAs. Partly KPSOs are further connected with observing systems. In case studies that were assumed to be the most important for representing the impacts from observing systems in the Arctic, the analysis of relationships between observing systems and SBAs included the evaluation of the strength of impacts. The desk research and structured interviews with selected stakeholders provided additional information for the evaluation of links between KPSOs and SBAs defining the relative importance and strength of the relationships, and refined the selection of observing systems contributing to different case studies. Table 16 lists the stakeholders interviewed for obtaining information for linking KPSOs with SBAs in one direction, and KPSOs with Oss in the other direction of the value tree. The detailed list of experts together with a sample of questions is shown in Annex 3.

Table 16: Additional interviews with stakeholders

Type of stakeholder Interviews Fishing economist and ocean expert Operations manager of shipping company 3 Port manager Manager of offshore installations Expert on offshore installations 1 Port captain 1 Managers of airports, railway stations or ports that are built on permafrost Researcher 1 Providers of observing systems including: 3 App developer, Satellite operator, Research aircraft operator

9.2 Case study selection In the second step, a number of case studies have been selected in order to provide a set of detailed analysis of societal benefits deriving from the synergies across the EU Space programme elements. The selected case studies met the criteria of: relevance and sensitivity to environmental and societal issues in the Arctic; capacity of producing benefits; coverage of a wide spectrum of different satellite systems and their synergies; Taken together they produce benefits in all of the twelve Arctic SBAs.

111 In the last two decades, the summer sea-ice cover dramatically decreased, with open waters extending to the central Arctic Ocean. Before 2000 the sea-ice extent at the end of summer was on average above 6 millions of km2. In the last two decades it dropped to about 4 millions of km2, with the minimum sea- ice extent recorded in summer 2012 at about 3.5 millions of km2 (Figure 58).

Figure 58: Arctic sea ice extent. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark grey. The grey areas around the median line show the interquartile and interquartile ranges (25th -75th) of the data. The averages for each decade are shown in different colours: 1979-1990 (orange); 1991-2000 (light green); 2001-2010 (black); 2011-2018 (light blue). The year 2012, with minimum summer sea–ice cover, is shown with dashed red line. (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center). The changing sea-ice conditions of the last decades influenced the life and activities of indigenous people and local population (Box 1). At the same time other human activities are increasing in the Arctic due to the reduced sea-ice cover, first of all shipping for transport, commercial, offshore installations and tourism activities. These activities in the Arctic also require a further development of safety measures to protect human lives and the environment. For this reason we selected a number of case studies/activities which are highly dependent on the forecast of sea-ice and other environmental conditions, global satellite navigation and communication systems. Examples of these activities are: Ship routing and navigation: new shipping routes through the North Polar Region will be opened by changing sea-ice conditions. Summer navigability will be also extended for current open-water routes. Satellite observations, navigation and communication services provide information improving safety and reducing environmental impacts of navigation. Search and Rescue: the success of rescue operations in the remote and harsh environments of the Arctic strongly depends on improved localisation, timely communication, and high quality forecasts of the environmental conditions (weather, ocean, sea ice). Offshore installation: observations and other satellite products are needed during exploration, transportation and distribution of extracted resources and decommissioning of platforms in the harsh Arctic environment. Services based on satellites are crucial for safe and sustainable activities. Oil spills: the timely detection and reaction to oil spills are fundamental to avoid environmental disasters. The response time and mitigation efficiency require a fast and precise identification and localization of the spill and a short-term forecast of atmospheric and marine conditions to predict its spread. In the next sections, the specific challenges and needs for ship routing and SAR activities will be briefly outlined. Few examples of the synergies between different space programs which contribute to these

112 activities are as well discussed. A final section describes the societal benefits of satellite space programs and observations in these fields.

Box 1. Preserving the indigenous people traditional way of life The traditional life of indigenous people in the Arctic is largely affected by the sea-ice and snow cover, which have rapidly changed in the last decades. The new conditions in some cases may be very far from what is known through the traditional knowledge, posing a great problem for many traditional activities of indigenous people, such as fishing, hunting, herding, or simply moving in their environment. Routes traditionally known as safe are becoming less reliable, particularly in periods of ice freeze- up in autumn and break-up in spring. For this reason, satellites may be very helpful to complement the traditional knowledge in new environmental conditions. First of all, geo- localization and communication is of paramount importance in such remote areas. Second, some environmental information, such as sea-ice or snow cover and thickness, may be used as well by indigenous people for their daily activities. Examples of services or initiatives which support indigenous people and local population in the Arctic through the use of satellite data are: — Polar View Community Ice Service (http://floeedge.polarview.org/): a downstream service of CMEMS (section 4.1.5.2) which uses near-real-time Sentinel 1 satellite imagery to monitor the ice conditions for communities. It is used to identify dangerous areas and to determine the safest and shortest routes on sea-ice (section 4.2.3). — SmartICE (https://www.smartice.org/): Stationary sensors (buoys) and mobile sensors mounted on snowmobiles are combined with satellite imagery (Sentinel, Cryosat, and TerraSAR-X) and traditional knowledge to provide reliable near-real-time sea-ice thickness and share these informations by a smartphone application. — SEEKU Connecting Arctic voices: developed during the Global EO System of Systems HACK 2018, allows the people living in the Arctic to make use of satellite images (e.g. Sentinel), weather data and in-situ observations, and to share these information with others and with their Elders to predict possible environmental hazards (https://www.earthobservations.org/me_201805_dpw.php?t=challenges). All these three examples are based on the combination of three elements: - Traditional knowledge: local indigenous people have the longest understanding of local conditions to inform the sensors deployment, they are active partner in all project operations, - Ice sensing: Autonomous sensors record sea-ice thickness and in-situ sensors provide remote data collection and monitoring, networked data are integrated with satellite imagery, - Smart design: sea-ice hazard maps updated regularly and available on smart phones, and a social enterprise model which generates local employment and economic activity.

113

Example of a sea-ice service overview (Polar View Community Ice Service) (Polar View Earth Observation Limited 2016) The main outputs of these services are: - Up-to-date Go, Slow, No-Go colour-coded travel zones. Designations are based on numerous data points, on-the-ground reports, and traditional knowledge. - Ice thickness measurements along specific travel routes. Users can also view changes in ice thickness over time. - Daily satellite imagery of ground cover and ability to overlay coastline. Satellites from the EU space program are used, such as Sentinel, Cryosat, TerraSAR-X. - Geographical and community-based interest markers. These may include landscape or ice features representing potential hazards, presence of cracks in the ice, location of seal holes, and base camp locations.

114

Examples of a SmartICE travel map. (Source: SmartICE) These new applications lead to a series of positive impacts for local communities and all Arctic stakeholders. Optimisation of operations on sea ice (minimize travel time, fuel costs, equipment wear; maximise safety) allows for informed decision-making across a wide area. Emergency rescue services can be optimised increasing public safety. In addition app like Polar View, SmartICE and SEEKU, as a community activity, safeguards traditional livelihoods, uses and knowledge of sea ice, and expands local employment and training opportunities. These apps were linked by experts to 5 SBAs: Enhanced infrastructure and operations; Fundamental understanding of Arctic systems; Increased disaster preparedness; Monitoring of impacts on environmental quality; Sociocultural Services; and Resilient communities (Dobricic et al. 2018). This challenge addresses as well the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, for example Quality Education (SDG4), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11), Climate Action (SDG13).

9.3 Ship routing and navigation The declining sea-ice is opening new navigation routes through the Arctic Ocean due to extended open water areas and summer navigability. Figure 59 (left panel) shows the possible routes available for navigation in the recent years. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) along the Russian coasts today is the main navigation route in the Arctic and mostly used to connect ports within the Arctic. Between 2001 and 2018 there were 280 transits (navigation between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans) along the NSR, mostly by tankers and cargo vessels (https://arctic-lio.com/category/statistics/). The navigation along the Alaskan and Canadian coastlines, the Northwest Passage (NWP), is generally closed by sea- ice and only in the last years, after 2008, one or two tankers or cargo vessels per year could transit (Eguiluz et al. 2016). In the near future, before 2030, these routes might be more accessible for different types of vessels, as shown in Figure 59 for future sea-ice conditions simulated by an ensemble of global models under different climate conditions (RCP2.6: very low greenhouse gas concentration levels; RCP8.5: very high greenhouse gas concentration levels. See details at https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb). Routes which are navigable in September from open water vessels (OW) are shown in cyan, while pink lines represent routes available for Polar Class 6 vessels (PC6: Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusion); line weights indicate the number of transits using the same route (Melia, Haines, and Hawkins 2016). In the coming decade, according to the model simulations, the potential for trans-Arctic navigation is 90% for PC6 vessels and above 30% for OW vessels (Figure 59, central and right panels). This new routes may significantly reduce the distances

115 between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The navigation time along the NSR, for example between Rotterdam and Yokohama, could drop to about 18 days compared to 30 days needed to pass from the Suez Canal. Along the NWP about 21 days are needed to connect New York and Yokohama, compared to 25 days needed through the Panama Canal.

Figure 59, left panel: Hypothetical open water vessel routes sailing through the September sea ice thickness field for eight recent years from the Pan‐Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) reanalysis (Zhang and Rothrock 2003). In the small box the main Arctic transit options are shown. Central and right panels: Fastest available September trans‐Arctic routes from multimodel projections. Routes for RCP2.6 (a) and RCP8.5 (b) for the period 2015- 2030 (15 consecutive Septembers, from five GCMs each with three ensemble members, equating to 225 simulations per panel). Source: Melia et al. 2016.

Despite the declining sea-ice may open new shipping routes, the navigation in the Arctic is still challenging and the economic viability of the Arctic routes is not yet achieved for different reasons. The main challenges can be summarized in the following list: Environmental conditions and impact: the harsh weather conditions, the rather short navigation season and the difficulties in sea-ice forecasting make navigation difficult and shipping schedules more variable. At the same time the impact of new shipping routes in the Arctic will further increase atmospheric and marine pollution, with further possible feedbacks on the sea ice decline; High costs: ship construction (ice reinforced vessels and specialized equipment) and operation (including use of icebreakers to clear the lanes from ice for commercial shipping) are more expensive in the Arctic; Infrastructure gap: major improvements to the current infrastructures are needed, in the Arctic the number of deep water ports able to support, provide repair and refuelling large commercial vessels is limited; Safety: increased marine activities will require disaster preparedness, both in terms of Search and Rescue and protection of the fragile Arctic environment from pollution and irreversible damages. Data from different satellite programs are used to tackle the above-mentioned challenges and to achieve a wide range of objectives, related to ship management, organise and plan existing and future navigation routes under changing ice conditions, and improve weather forecasts used by shipping industry. Examples of specific objectives are: Improve maritime traffic supervision and tracking; Improve direction of individual ship journeys; Reduce sailing distance through the Arctic; Ensure continued operation of transportation and shipping activities; Provide shipping sector-specific weather predictions for economic productivity; Ensure safe and secure infrastructure design and operations; Manage disturbances to marine and coastal ecosystems. Improve understanding of climate as a driver of changing environmental quality;

116 Improve understanding, prediction, and detection of weather events in the Arctic and their effects on shipping; Improve linkages between weather and climate observations across timescales to reduce uncertainty in weather forecast and climate modelling prediction; Support effective response, planning, mitigation, and resource allocation based on changing climatic conditions in the Arctic. A large number of services needed for different commercial shipping activities in the Arctic must be developed to achieve the objectives mentioned above. Oceanographic, meteorological and geophysical data are needed for a large variety of shipping activities, such as for the fishery industry, to cargo and cruise ships and scientific research vessels. Examples of KPSOs are: Improved maps of ocean floor: extensive hydrographic surveys to determine channel depths and submarine hazards; Real-time reports, short term forecasts and longer term predictions of ice, weather and sea conditions: Forecast and real time reports are needed to guide individual journeys. Important information is Sea-ice cover and thickness, tracking free floating ice and icebergs, intensity and direction of winds and waves. Long-term projections of ice conditions are needed for designating Arctic shipping routes. Maps and real-time monitoring ocean currents: can be an obstacle to shipping or of great benefit, saving fuel and time if known correctly. Navigation charts: Increased melting of ice enhances the inadequacy of nautical charts used for route planning. This is a significant issue, namely in the Arctic, where emergency response infrastructure is lacking in some remote areas. Communication assistance: Analogue voice and data transmission, enabled by satellite digital communication systems, needs to reach all regions in the Arctic. Observations are crucial for weather and sea-ice forecast. Many data are provided by instruments on satellites for EO, but many other in-situ observation systems provide important data relying on geo- positioning and communication satellites. Examples of satellites needed to provide services in the Arctic are listed below:  EO satellites : AISSat-1, Sentinel 1, Sentinel 3, TerraSAR-X, TanDEM-X, CryoSat, SMOS  GNSS Radio Occultation receiver on low-Earth-orbiting satellites (LEO)  GNSS for geo-positioning (GPS and Galileo) and communication satellites (Iridium) for data transfer are needed by a wide range of in-situ observations, in particular ice, moored and drifting buoys (e.g. ARGO floats) and gliders. A good example of existing synergies between different satellite programs elements is the GNSS Radio Occultation (RO). This technique makes use of existing transmitted GNSS signals originally designed for PNT (Positioning, Navigation and Timing) applications, (see navigation inventory in section 5), but can benefit as well ship routing by improving short term weather forecast. When a low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) satellite carrying a RO receiver is occulted behind the Earth relative to a global navigation satellite system, the radio waves that it receives from the navigation satellite are slowed and refracted by Earth’s atmosphere. The Doppler shift of radio waves can be measured accurately providing information on the bending angle and refractivity as a function of height in the stratosphere and troposphere. RO observations are characterized by the high accuracy and, unlike some other satellite observations, are not biased. By applying a mathematical operator linking changes of atmospheric temperature and humidity to modifications of the bending angle and refractivity they may be used to improve estimates of tropospheric temperature and humidity profiles and thus ameliorate weather prediction and climate monitoring. Starting from the first demonstration of their use in an operational numerical weather prediction centre (Poli et al. 2010), several studies estimated their impact on weather forecast showing their positive impact particularly in the upper troposphere (Cardinali 2009; Cardinali and Healy 2014; Bormann, Lawrence, and Farnan 2019). A relatively small number of RO observations with respect to the number of some other satellite observations, like radiances, significantly contribute to direct estimates of temperature and other tropospheric parameters in short and medium term weather forecasts (Poli et al. 2010; Cardinali and Healy 2014; Bormann et al. 2019). Those RO observations by reducing biases from other observations may contribute to the better use of a large number of satellite

117 observations (Bormann et al. 2019). Despite the relatively small number of RO observations, they also contribute to improve the forecast performance by 3-4% (Figure 60).

Figure 60 Estimates of weighted impact of observing systems on the short term weather forecast at the ECMWF in August 2019. RO observations (“GPSRO” in the figure) contribute by 3-4% to the Forecast Sensitivity to Observations Impact (FSOI).

The impact of RO observations is mainly concentrated in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (Cardinali and Healy 2014; Bormann et al. 2019) and, therefore, they may mostly implicitly improve the prediction of near-surface atmospheric parameters. During many important weather events in the Artic, like polar lows or sudden stratospheric warming, perturbations of wind, pressure, temperature and humidity in the lower troposphere may be strongly correlated with perturbations in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. In these cases RO observations might contribute to a number of societal benefits in the Arctic. In particular, they could contribute to improved forecasts of near-surface temperatures and winds that may further improve KPSOs related to the sea-ice social benefit domain. They may improve short and medium term sea-ice cover forecasts and in this way contribute to benefits related to search and rescue, navigation in the Arctic, preservation of traditional human activities over sea-ice and offshore platforms. A second example is the use of the ESA Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission to measure sea-ice. Even if not originally planned, it turned out that the radiometer carried by SMOS could be used also to complement the radio altimeter data from CryoSat to have a better measure of sea-ice thickness. While CryoSat is more accurate for thicker ice, SMOS data are more accurate for ice thickness below one meter. The combination of these two products helped to improve the sea-ice forecasts, which is crucial for marine traffic operators to determine the safest and most economic routes. SMOS and CryoSat data were used to reconstruct the sea-ice cover and thickness since 2010 (Figure 61), contributing to scientific studies on understanding the sea-ice annual variability and climate change.

118

Figure 61: Sea-ice thickness estimated from the SMOS mission observations. Left panel shows the November 2012 sea- ice cover and thickness. The right panel shows changes in sea-ice thickness during November between 2010 and 2016. (Source: http://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/SMOS/Satellite_cousins_have_ice_covered)

9.4 Search and Rescue Rapid changes have occurred in the Arctic during the last decades. Environmental conditions, such as the sea ice cover and thickness and weather conditions are more and more difficult to forecast. At the same time the activity levels of human activities, such as shipping, tourism, research, mining and fisheries industries, will increase in the Arctic as climate change and new technology offer more opportunities for vessel traffic in the region and access to remote areas. The possibilities of incidents in the maritime/land Arctic will increase alongside this developments. These scenarios can range from ship groundings or a ship trapped in ice to a drill ship incident or ship collisions. The main challenges for SAR operations in the Arctic are due to the long distances, the extreme environmental conditions, and the lack of infrastructures. All these factors create long response time for SAR operators, logistically complicate and expensive operations. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) introduced in 2017 the Polar Code which covers the full range of design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue and environmental protection matters relevant to ships operating in the inhospitable waters surrounding the two poles (http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Pages/default.aspx). In extreme cold temperatures survival times are shorten, the ability to provide medical care is complicated and equipment may not work and in this context telemedicine may provide a very useful contribution given the adequate technical instruments including satellite services (Walderhaug et al. 2015). Sea ice is a high risk factor in the Arctic during summer and preventing maritime travels in the winter. While in the last decades we saw decreasing summer sea ice coverage and widening of the operating window for marine operations in the summertime, the risk of sea ice is not eliminated from the operating environment. In some cases the risk is larger due to breaking up larger blocks of multi-year ice and decreased predictability of sea ice conditions year-to-year. Icebreaking capability may be required to rescue ships that become stuck in the ice, and escort those trying to make passage through the ice, but in some cases ships will be required to find safe tracks without icebreaker assistance. There are challenges from joint operations, e.g. carried out in the context of Arctic Council activities. In addition to the need for better operational cooperation, more joint training and exercises, lessons learnt from joint exercises point to poor communication and lack of connections in the Arctic as key challenges for search and rescue operations. Communication between vessels, rescue units and land is key to good situational awareness. However, connections, both satellite and radio, are very limited in the Arctic region (with cell phone networks being almost non-existent, radio towers rare, and communications

119 satellites often below the horizon). In this context the return link service available from the Galileo system provides an acknowledgment to people in distress. In the return link evolution there will be also a messaging service. A user in distress could provide information relative to the sea state, temperature, winds and other environmental conditions to facilitate SAR operations. As contact is often lost for fleets operating further offshore, SAR operations themselves are very difficult to manage. At the same time, SAR operations require a constant transfer of real-time data to those who need it in an emergency. Thus, a loss of connection may result in additional risks for crews and passengers of ships affected by accidents. To overcome these communications challenges, human operators need to rely on more advanced satellite systems with polar coverage. The main objectives of the observing, geo-localisation and communication systems used in SAR operations are to contribute to activities related to disaster preparedness: Deploy emergency responder personnel and equipment in an optimal manner pre- and post-disaster; Conduct risk assessments to inform disaster preparedness activities; Develop and execute plans and procedures for disaster prevention; Improve future disaster preparedness activities; Support disaster aid planning and deployment; Develop and maintain analytical capabilities for hazard identification, disaster prediction and future disaster preparedness activities; Reduce loss of life and injury and damage to property due to routine or high-impact weather events. In a SAR operation satellite observations are needed to provide real-time information on environmental parameters such as: weather condition, velocity fields and derived convergence/divergence fields current state of the wind, currents or waves ice thickness, ice volume fluxes vertical heat fluxes and brine rejection from the freezing of ice glaciers or icebergs in the area For several of these observed variables, satellite-derived information, in particular from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data, is needed at regular intervals. SAR ice images can also provide more accurate input data as well as validation data for weather and ice forecasting models. The Sentinel 1 satellite, for example, provides all-weather day-and-night measurements of sea ice. In addition, satellites are also used to detect Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), which are automatic tracking systems used on ships and vessel traffic services. These are very important in a SAR operation for establishing the location of particular vessel that could be in need. This information is needed to generate different products or services (KPSO): Accurate navigation charts; Information on meteorological and oceanographic conditions; Information on infrastructure and other vessels in the area; Disaster-relevant environmental intelligence, such as: Iceberg maps; Surface current or drift maps; GNSS positioning data of vessels; Sea ice maps; (Local) tidal maps given the extreme tide variations in the Arctic; Risk assessments to inform disaster preparedness activities; Some of the satellite systems used for the production of KPSO in SAR activities is listed below: EO: TerraSAR-X[1], Sentinel 1 [2],[3], NovaSAR-S, CryoSat;

120 Galileo SAR service: 5 SAR/GAL reference beacons (REFBE), MEOSAR instruments, Galileo SAR transponders on-board the Galileo satellites (23 operational), 3 European MEOLUT ground stations. It is challenging to estimate the scale of SAR operations in the Arctic region, as there are no consolidated statistics on these activities. Available data focus on SAR operations for shipping and show a steady increase over the years (+22% from one decade to the other), in line with the overall increase in vessels transiting the Arctic.39 The table below provides an overview of the SAR operations reported in the decades 1995-2004 (Brigham et al. 2009) and 2005-2014 (Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty 2015).

Table 17: Number of SAR operations for two decades, 1995-2004 and 2005-2014, and grouped by different causes. Decade 1995-2004 Decade 2005-2014 Collision N/A Machinery 135 damage/failure Damage to vessel 54 Wrecked/stranded 90 Fire/explosion 25 Miscellaneous 32 Grounded 68 Fire/explosion 25 Machinery 71 Collision 25 damage/failure Miscellaneous 10 Contact (e.g. 20 harbour wall) Hull damage 19 Foundered 11 Total 271 Total 347

39 Data presented for the two decades are taken from different sources. Therefore the comparability (also of the categories used) is limited. It is possible that the datasets are incomplete.

121

Figure 62: Borders of the Search and Rescue region of the North Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres (JRCC North Norway), located in Bodø. Right top panel shows the total number of alerts received by the North-JRCC for every month after 2012, for sea, land and air emergencies. Right bottom panel shows the number of distress signals handled by Cospas/Sarsat NMCC for sea (EPIRB), land (PLB), and Air (ELT).

More recent data are available from the Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres (JRCC’s) in Norway, which co-ordinate the SAR operations for the Norwegian Search and Rescue region. The North JRCC, located in Bodø, is responsible for coordinating the conduct of search and rescue operations for latitudes above 65 degrees north. Figure 62 shows the total number of alerts which were notified to the North JRCC in last years for sea/land/air emergencies. The alarms from the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBS) will be handled by Cospas/Sarsat NMCC (Norwegian Mission Control Center) at JRCC in Bodø. In the case of an alert (see example in Box 2), the JRCC establishes and maintains direct communication with the ship reporting to be in need of assistance, via radio, INMARSAT. The on-scene coordinator or other ships on scene should provide JRCC with on scene weather (wind, seastate, sea-current, visibility and temperature) and any information on search targets and time and position of incident.

122 Box 2. Northguider (Hinlopen Strait, Svalbard 2018-2019)

(Image:http://icepeople.net/2019/07/20/even-more-shipwrecked-trawler-stranded-in- north-svalbard-since-december-suffers-major-damage-august-removal-planned/)

The Northguider vessel was fishing North of the Svalbard archipelago on the 28th of December 2018, when it grounded in Hinlopen Strait in the nature reserve of the Nordaustlandet, 80 degrees North. The rescue operation was managed by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Bodø, Northern Norway, with atmospheric temperatures below -20 °C and strong winds. All the 14 crew members were rescued by helicopter and none were injured. Despite its remote location, fishing is common in the Hinlopen Strait. “The initial response to the grounding was later described as being at the far limit of what was possible, however, and has resulted in questions being asked about whether winter search-and- rescue capacity near Svalbard is adequate, particularly given the projected increase in the number of ships sailing in the area”. After the SAR operation the environmental emergency needed to be assessed in order to avoid an oil spill of the 300 tonnes of diesel fuel contained in the Northguider. Only in January 2019 it was possible to remove the fuel using three rib boats and 30 plastic tanks holding 1,000 litres each. 160 trips between the Coast Guard vessel and the ‘Northguider’ were needed for this operation. The ship could be finally removed only in August 2019 when the region is generally free from sea-ice and weather is stable providing better working conditions than at other times of the year. Removing the ship during winter was too challenging, due to unpredictable weather and temperatures below -40 °C. In such conditions the operation was unsafe for those taking part, and could result in the ship sinking while it was being towed. Also during spring and early summer the towing operation could disturb seabirds that nest in the area. Source : https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/12/drama-arctic-waters- trawler-runs-aground-svalbard ; https://www.arctictoday.com/the-mission-to-salvage-a- stranded-svalbard-fishing-vessel-is-on-hold-until-august/ ; https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/svalbard-preparing-extreme-pumping-operation-using-small-boats

123 9.5 Societal benefits During a specialist workshop (Gueel Sans Ariadna 2018) the possible links between observing systems (including EO satellites) and societal benefits associated to ship routing, SAR operations, as well as other activities which relies on precise sea-ice and weather forecast in the Arctic (such as oil spills and offshore installations) were identified by experts of observing systems in the Arctic. Additional information was gathered through desk research and interviews to stakeholders (section 9.1.2) For the analysis of the sea-ice topic the following KPSO’s were selected:

Figure 63: Short description of KPSO associated to sea-ice conditions. The impact on the value tree was assessed by experts in terms of number of SBA and SBA sub-areas, and key objectives for each KPSO. (Source: EVERIS,2018; Dobricic et al., 2018).

The experts were asked to find the links between the sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs and to assign a qualitative score, (low, medium and high) to each link according to the extent to which the KPSO contributes to the specific KO. Figure 63 summarizes the total number of SBAs, sub areas, key objectives and observing systems that could be associated by the experts to the four KPSOs related to sea-ice for ship routing, oil spill, offshore installation and sea rescue. A total number of 92 key objectives were connected to 19 SBA sub-areas and distributed among 8 different SBAs as follow: Disaster preparedness. 49 key objectives in all 5 SBA sub-areas: 8 in Disaster Mitigation 18 in Disaster Protection and Prevention 8 in Disaster Recovery

124 9 in Hazard Identification and Disaster Prediction 6 Disaster Response Environmental Quality. 7 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 3 in Drivers of Environmental Impacts 4 in Environmental Impacts Food security. 2 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 1 in Accessible, Available, and Sustainable Food 1 in Exchange of Food Human health. 1 key objective in 1 SBA sub-area: 1 in Public Health Infrastructures and operations. 9 key objectives in 3 SBA-sub-areas: 2 in Planning of Infrastructure 2 in Development of Infrastructure 5 in Operations and Maintenance of Infrastructure Marine and coastal ecosystems and processes. 5 key objectives in 1 SBA sub-area: 5 in Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Biodiversity Natural resources. 9 key objectives in 3 SBA sub-areas: 2 in Natural Resource Exploration and Assessment 6 in in Natural Resource Development and Exploitation 1 in Natural Resource Decommissioning and Reclamation Weather and climate. 10 key objectives in 2 SBA sub-areas: 2 in Weather Effects on Economic Productivity 8 in Weather Effects on Protection of Lives and Property

125 Marine and Disaster Infrastructu Coastal Weather Environme Food Human Natural Preparedn re and Ecosystem and ntal Quality Security Health Resource ess Operations s and Climate Processes Low 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Medium 21 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 High 16 4 2 1 5 5 8 10

Figure 64 Aggregate connections between all sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: Everis 2018; Dobricic et al. 2018).

Each KPSO contributes to a different set of SBAs (Figure 63). The aggregate connections between all sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs used a matrix available in the study Everis 2018. “Ship routing” has the strongest connection with the “Disaster Preparedness”, “Natural Resources”, and “Weather and Climate” (Figure 65). For “Search and Rescue”, the most connected KOs with high and medium intensity are “Disaster Preparedness” with five and seven Kos (Figure 66). In the case of the KPSO “Oil spill” (Figure 67), the most strongly associated SBAs are “Disaster Preparedness” and “Environmental Quality”. Lastly, the “Offshore installations” are characterized by five and four high intensity links with “Infrastructure and Operations” and “Natural Resource” KOs and three high intensity links with “Disaster Preparedness” and “Weather and Climate” Kos (Figure 68).

126 Ship routing

Marine and Disaster Environmental Coastal Natural Weather and Food Security Preparedness Quality Ecosystems Resource Climate and Processes Low 6 0 0 0 0 0 Medium 2 1 0 0 0 0 High 3 1 2 2 4 3

High Medium Low

Figure 65: Connections between “Ship routing” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018).

Search and Rescue

Disaster Preparedness Weather and Climate Low 0 0 Medium 7 0 High 5 2

High Medium Low

Figure 66: Connections between “Search and Rescue” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018).

127 Oil spill

Marine and Disaster Environmental Coastal Weather and Human Health Preparedness Quality Ecosystems and Climate Processes Low 0 0 0 0 0 Medium 8 1 0 0 0 High 5 2 1 1 2

High Medium Low

Figure 67: Connections between “Oil spill” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018).

Offshore installations

Marine and Infrastructure Coastal Disaster Environmental Natural Weather and and Ecosystems Preparedness Quality Resource Climate Operations and Processes Low 6 0 1 0 0 0 Medium 4 1 3 0 1 0 High 3 1 5 2 4 3

High Medium Low

Figure 68: Connections between “Offshore installations” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018). Quantifiable benefits were estimated in economic terms for the “Sea-ice” KPSOs case studies in a conservative way by Dobricic et al. 2018. Only cost savings, for example in terms of fuel consumption, were considered. Observations were conservatively assumed to be responsible for 15-20% of the cost savings (Deloitte 2018) calculated for three scenarios for the evolution of commercial traffic in the Arctic assuming variously a 50% lower (conservative), current (central) and 25% faster (speculative) growth rates for Arctic shipping. Total annual savings by 2028 are of the order of 920 – 1168 MEUR, consequently the benefits form observations are between 138 and 234 MEUR/yr by 2028 (Dobricic et

128 al. 2018). For “Search and Rescue” KPSO, in a conservative scenario (no efficiency gain from better observations) costs are expected to increase in line with the increase in human activity, i.e. by about 16%. A central (limited efficiency gain) and speculative (higher efficiency gain) scenarios are expected to lead to a 5.3% and 17.6% decrease in the costs of SAR operations compared to the conservative scenario. On this basis, the efficiency gain from observing systems in SAR operations may reduce annual costs up to the EUR 0.5-1 million range in the Arctic (Dobricic et al. 2018; Deloitte 2018). The efficiency of the oil spill response may improve with better observations creating savings measurable in economic terms. Dobricic et al. 2018 estimated the savings due to improved efficiency of oil spill response activities taking as a reference the Exxon Valdez incident occurred in Alaska in 1989. Assuming an accident like Exxon Valdez every 10 years, the savings by improving the cleaning activities through better observations are in the range of 1 to 4 MEUR annually. Some important economic social benefits were not quantified, such as environmental quality, food security and human health in oil spill, SAR and offshore installation activities.

129 10 Conclusions

The rapid environmental changes occurring in the Arctic are accompanied by an increasing presence of human activities and interests in the region. The needs of indigenous people, local population and economic actors in the Arctic requires more and more the combined use of different satellite products to communicate, to move with navigation support, and to monitor and forecast environmental conditions.

It is in this context that this study identifies the specific user needs and the challenges of the Arctic region, and the available and foreseen Space assets with a focus on the European capacities. Arctic Space solutions were sought through the four elements of the European Space programme – EO, European Global Navigation Satellite Systems (EGNSS), Satellite Communications and Space Situational Awareness – inventorying current and future capabilities (10 year’s timeframe). The evaluation of the pertinence of each space asset was mapped according to the challenges identified using a cross-cutting approach. The study led to the identification of gaps in particular related to some products and existing services, with possible solution to improve them.

Regarding Copernicus for safe navigation in the Arctic, the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) brings a clear benefit by delivering an array of sea ice products (including sea ice concentration, sea ice edge, sea ice type, sea ice thickness and sea ice drift, as well as iceberg concentration). However, operational users, both civilian and military, are still in need of more detailed and more timely provision of sea ice, bathymetry and iceberg information to adequately evaluate risk.

Improved service product portfolios and new products (e.g. redistribution of radar altimetry sea ice thickness) would be incorporated in next generation Copernicus missions, expected to improve safe operations and navigation in the maritime sector, and better covering of research needs. However, a clear gap remains between model-based forecast systems and polar end-users needs in terms of resolution. Continuous investments in the development of high-resolution forecast systems, observations and appropriate data assimilation techniques are required to generate more user-relevant services.

EGNSSs already cover the Arctic region; in particular, the Galileo Open Service (OS) is available for non-safety critical purposes for positioning, navigation and timing synchronization under all weather conditions. In addition, the Galileo Search and Rescue (SaR) service covers the Arctic up to 85° North latitude. The service brings a net benefit in reducing significantly the time needed for localization of users in distress. A fundamental element of the Galileo SaR service is the return link feature (available since January 2020). This unique capability confirms the user that the distress message has been received. The augmentation system EGNOS has a gap in its coverage of the Arctic. This gap is due to the GEO orbit of the EGNOS satellites, which makes them visible only up to 72° North (or lower in mountainous terrain). Although EGNOS only partially covers the Arctic, EGNOS services (OS and SoL) are already exploited in the area. EGNOS SoL service is particularly useful in aviation where the integrity information is fundamental. The study found that a growing number of airports implement EGNOS-based landing procedures. An alternative solution to the integrity information provided by EGNOS is the future Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM) service, which will provide improved integrity, in particular for aviation and maritime sectors. The service will have a global coverage, also above 72°N, and horizontal ARAIM will be available by 2025. An additional future capability of Galileo that is expected to be very valuable to the Arctic is the Emergency Warning Service, which will provide warnings to the population in case of emergencies related to events such as fire, floods, and storms. The service is designed to target the public and in some cases the emergency authorities.

Regarding the Satellite Communications (SatCom) component, the key issue is that most communications satellites are GEO, but only non-GEO satellites are able to cover the Arctic region.

130 Currently only Iridium Next (US-based Company) operating on MEO orbits covers the Arctic region entirely. Governmental Systems serve primarily for MilSatCom, although some of them have a dual-use payload which would allow their usage for GovSatCom. However, all these governmental systems also employ GEO orbits, therefore their usage for northernmost regions is limited. Future potential systems for GovSatCom have been investigated: HEO satellites – Global Xpress (by Inmarsat); LEO satellite mega constellations – OneWeb, Starlink and Telesat LEO. The new GX payloads will provide continuous, assured communications to tactical and strategic government users operating in the Arctic region. The satellite mega constellations for broadband internet are starting to put their first satellites in orbit and are testing the first connections to users.

Following this in-depth review of the different Space element programmes, it was possible to identify a number of synergies. Remote sensing techniques can use GNSS signals as a signal of opportunity to retrieve geophysical parameters: GNSS radio occultation for atmosphere and climate applications; GNSS-reflectometry to derive sea ice extent or snow depth; and signal delays from GNSS payloads on board satellites to derive ionospheric parameters. The synergies between EO, GNSS and SatCom are very strong for maritime applications including safe navigation and surveillance. Space-borne Automatic Identification System (AIS) receivers – that can be seen as a kind of SatCom system – are used to track reporting ships, while imaging satellites can detect non-reporting ships and map ice conditions; and the results can be transmitted to ship-board users in near-real-time with SatCom. Easiness for connecting, visualizing, analysing satellite data without pre- processing are also more needed. The Internet Of Things (IoT) applications are growing and represent a nice example of synergy between GNSS, SatCom and EO bringing new services with improved connectivity to the indigenous Arctic populations.

Under the SSA component, Space weather is monitored to warn against dangerous events that can impact electronics in space and on earth. But space weather also influences the ionosphere, leading to GNSS inaccuracies or outages, so we see a clear synergy in the support of GNSS by the SSA component.

An analysis based on expert opinions was conducted for a few case studies related to activities which depend on sea-ice forecast (ship routing, SaR, offshore installation and oil spills). Communication, positioning and EO satellites and their synergies contribute to the definition of key products and services concerning sea-ice in the Arctic which could be linked to 92 key objectives in 8 different societal benefit areas. The evaluation of the benefits for Arctic people and operators was based on methodologies developed for policy evaluation such as Value Tree Analysis and Intervention Logic. In particular, this demonstrates that investments in Arctic observing systems are fully justified by economic returns, even for the limited number of economic activities evaluated in the study. The study focused mainly on local-to-regional benefits but the proposed analytical framework can be further developed to account for societal benefits of Arctic observing systems ranging from local to global scales.

To reinforce the efficiency of existing and future capabilities for the Arctic users and to improve connectivity, the exploitation of various synergies like those illustrated in this report are highly desirable at programmatic levels, particularly those between Galileo and Copernicus.

131 11 Main recommendations This section presents some policy recommendations based on the main findings of the study. The policy options have been deduced from the feedback and expertise gathered from a thorough literature review, experts feedback from specialist meetings on GNSS and space technologies (e.g. GNSS-R meeting 2019, EU Space week 2019), science and policy workshop organized by IDA-STPI and SAON (IDA- STPI and SAON 2017) and from the Arctic Circle assembly 2019. Hereafter some new lines of thinking emerge and some recommendations are given to answer five policy objectives:

1. Maximising the benefits for the Arctic users at economic, societal and environmental level

Accelerate the efforts to increase the development of broadband communication to ensure that the Arctic region that requires more and more capability for connecting, visualizing, and analysing satellite/AIS data are provided timely to the users even located in remote areas. Given the actual distribution and density of the local communities, a total backhaul capacity in the order of 100 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s can be assumed. This effort should be carried out considering that users should have access to European communications system in order to avoid their dependency on some non-EU countries. This is especially essential for information and development purposes. Such development need to be conducted in order that the minimum requirements for broadcasting service are aligned with the rest of the world.

2. Spreading the use of commercial data by facilitating usage The increasing launch of nanosatellites combining various payloads such as GNSS receiver (both for GNSS radio-occultation and reflectometry), AIS payload allow to cover specific needs in the Arctic and then need to be exploited efficiently. There is a need to control and facilitate the use of some innovative data such as Radio Occultation data that offer several benefits for environmental and climate monitoring and may come more often from commercial partners. Therefore, it is important to reinforce the Public Private Partnership (PPP) to maximize the exploitation of data acquired by the increasing number of commercial missions. The PPP is needed and value analysis coming from cutting-edge satellites or constellations shall be studied. Concretely, this means to propose adequate mechanisms that allow assessing the scientific value of additional data provided by the increase of commercial missions. On-going initiatives include the support of EUMETSAT to ESA and NOAA for GNSS RO data by commercial entities. To do so, it is highly recommended to pursue international partnership between EUMETSAT, NOAA and space agencies worldwide. It is also desirable that ESA and the European Commission contribute to the ongoing transition from Research and Development towards full operations.

3. Supporting harmonization of devices and enlargement of existing services

Facilitate the usage of Search and Rescue capability through GNSS by the users, harmonizing the type of device that need to be used (beacons systems). This implies fostering adoption of multi-constellation capable beacons to ensure interoperability and full use of the SaR capacities.

Investigate suitable development of dedicated branch with existing Copernicus services. For example, with regard to the Copernicus Security Service (CSS), definition of new products and services tailored to the Arctic should be investigated. Any such new products can fit under the existing three service components, and no special new fourth service component would need to be set up for the Arctic. The description of the service components in the report already indicates some overlap, so it would help to further establish under which component new Arctic products and services would fall in an early phase of their definition.

132 Another important highlight of the study for the maritime sector is the required development of high- resolution forecast systems, which are needed to ingest observations with appropriate data assimilation techniques, in order to fill the resolution gap between model-based forecast systems and polar end- users needs.

4. Promoting usage of synergies to maximise safety encounter threats

Explore potentials of synergies within the EU Space programme elements of broadband mega- constellations to improve internet connectivity, communication and GovSatCom in the Arctic region. Accelerate and increase the efforts regarding security threats that need a fast reaction time for intervention and real-time communication and wide-band SatCom for downlinking. Pursue the effort on evaluation of robustness of navigation and communication capabilities against interferences in the Arctic region analysing the various available EU Space programme elements and their use in synergy. Also, with the advent of innovative applications using Signals of Opportunities it is needed to increase evaluation on possible threats and interferences on news systems and signals (nanosatellites, GNSS-reflectometry) and anticipate failures not only for military security applications but also for other domains like EO. Robustness against RF effects will be evaluated in the framework of an on-going ESA tender (EXPRO PLUS).

5. Promoting the sharing and widespread use of complex EO products and data platforms

Provide educational material and training programme to the Artic Users to facilitate the use of complex EO products and data platforms in general. Regarding the societal benefits in the Arctic, a preliminary analysis has been made considering few case studies and focusing on the local impacts inside the Arctic region. A larger number of societal benefits may be expected considering the wide spectrum of issues and activities of indigenous peoples and local population and extending the impacts in the lower latitudes. Indeed, the rapid changes happening in the Arctic impact the rest of the globe by changing the atmospheric and ocean circulation processes at a larger scale. The study which has been based on a structured approach with reproducible methodologies (VTA and IL) should be extended in the future for a full understanding of the use of satellite products, their benefits on society and their quantification in economic terms, in the Arctic and at global scale. Examples are the sea level rise from the glaciers melting in Greenland, or weather extremes affecting the societies at the mid-latitudes.

133 References

Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. 2015. “Safety and Shipping Review 2015,” no. December 2014: 36. http://www.agcs.allianz.com/assets/PDFs/Reports/Shipping- Review-2015.pdf. Alonso-Arroyo, Zavorotny, and Camps. 2017. “Sea Ice Detection Using U.K. TDS-1 GNSS- R Data.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 55 (9): 4989–5001. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2017.2699122. Anthes, Bernhardt, Chen, Cucurull, Dymond, Ector, Healy, et al. 2008. “The COSMIC/FORMOSAT-3 Mission: Early Results.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89 (3): 313–34. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-313. Arctic Council Task Force on Improved Connectivity in the Arctic. 2019. “Improving Connectivity in the Arctic.” Boniface, Gioia, Pozzoli, Diehl, Dobricic, Fortuny Guasch, Greidanus, et al. 2020. “Europe’s Space Capabilities for the Benefit of the Arctic - Key Capabilities , Synergies and Societal Benefits.” JRC Science for Policy Report. https://doi.org/10.2760/43511. Bormann, Lawrence, and Farnan. 2019. “Global Observing System Experiments in the ECMWF Assimilation System.” ECMWF Technical Memorandum 839. Brigham, McCalla, Cunningham, Barr, VanderZwaag, Chircop, Santos-Pedro, and MacDonald. 2009. “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA).” Arctic Council. Vol. 14. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004177567.i-594.47. Cardellach, Ao, de la Torre Juárez, and Hajj. 2004. “Carrier Phase Delay Altimetry with GPS-Reflection/Occultation Interferometry from Low Earth Orbiters.” Geophysical Research Letters 31 (10): 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019775. Cardellach, Oliveras, Rius, Tomás, Ao, Franklin, Iijima, et al. 2019. “Sensing Heavy Precipitation With GNSS Polarimetric Radio Occultations.” Geophysical Research Letters 46 (2): 1024–31. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080412. Cardellach, Tomás, Oliveras, Padullés, Rius, de la Torre-Juárez, and & Ector. 2014. “Sensitivity of PAZ LEO Polarimetric GNSS Radio-Occultation Experiment to Precipitation Events., 53(1), 190-206.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 53(1): 190–206. Cardinali. 2009. “Monitoring the Observation Impact on the Short-Range Forecast.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 135 (638): 239–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.366. Cardinali, and Healy. 2014. “Impact of GPS Radio Occultation Measurements in the ECMWF System Using Adjoint-Based Diagnostics.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 140 (684): 2315–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2300. Cartwright, Banks, and Srokosz. 2019. “Sea Ice Detection Using GNSS-R Data From TechDemoSat-1.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 124 (8): 5801–10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015327. Cartwright, Clarizia, Cipollini, Banks, and Srokosz. 2018. “Independent DEM of Antarctica Using GNSS-R Data From TechDemoSat-1.” Geophysical Research Letters 45 (12): 6117–23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077429. Chew, Shah, Zuffada, Hajj, Masters, and Mannucci. 2016. “Demonstrating Soil Moisture Remote Sensing with Observations from the UK TechDemoSat-1 Satellite Mission.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (7): 3317–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068189. Claes, and Moe. 2014. Arctic Petroleum Resources in a Regional and Global Perspective.

134 Edited by Tamnes and Offerdal. London: Geopolitics and Security in the Arctic: Regional Dynamics in a Global World. Clarizia, Ruf, Cipollini, and Zuffada. 2016. “First Spaceborne Observation of Sea Surface Height Using GPS-Reflectometry.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (2): 767–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066624. CNBC. 2019. “Russia Eyeing Arctic Future Launches Nuclear Icebreaker,” 2019. Commission of the European communities. 2008. “Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - The European Union and the Arctic Council. COM/2008/0763 Final.” Council of the European Union. 2019. “Draft Council Conclusions on ‘Space Solutions for a Sustainable Arctic.’” Dalsøren, Samset, Myhre, Corbett, Minjares, Lack, and Fuglestvedt. 2013. “Environmental Impacts of Shipping in 2030 with a Particular Focus on the Arctic Region.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13 (4): 1941–55. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1941-2013. Davidson, Μ., et al. 2019. “Copernicus L-Band SAR Mission Requirements Document, Version 1.0.” Noordwijk, The Netherlands. Deloitte. 2018. “Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic Observing Systems: Evaluation of Costs and Benefits. Final Report. 15 June 2018. (Available upon Request. Contact: Srdan Dobricic at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Srdan.Dobricic@ec.” Devyatkin. 2018. “Russia’s Arctic Strategy: Aimed at Conflict or Cooperation ?” Dobricic, Monforti-Ferrario, Pozzoli, Wilson, Gambardella, and Tilche. 2018. “Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic Observing Systems.” https://doi.org/10.2760/713084. Donlon. 2019. “Copernicus Imaging Microwave Radiometer (CIMR) Mission Requirements Document. Version 2.0; ESA-EOPSM-CIMR-MRD-3236.” Noordwijk, The Netherlands. https://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/CIMR-MRD-v3.0- 20190930_Issued.pdf. Duchossois, Strobl, Toumazou, Antunes, Bartsch, Diehl, Dinessen, et al. 2018. “User Requirements for a Copernicus Polar Mission - Phase 2 Report.” Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/44170. EC. 2016. “Proposal for a Galileo-Based Emergency Warning Service.” Eguiluz, Fernández-Gracia, Irigoien, and Duarte. 2016. “A Quantitative Assessment of Arctic Shipping in 2010--2014.” Scientific Reports 6 (1): 1–6. EMSA. 2018. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance Product Catalogue,” 12. ESA. 2019. “Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission for the Environment - Mission Requirements Document,” 1–95. https://doi.org/ESA-EOPSM-CHIM-MRD-3216. EU-PolarNet Consortium. 2017. “Deliverable D3.3. Survey of Existing Use of Space Assets by European Polar Operators, Including Recommendations for Improved Coordination.” ———. 2018. “Deliverable D3.6. Gap Analysis Highlighting the Technical and Operational Requirements of the European Polar Research Programme for Satellite Applications.” Euroconsult, MARINTEK, SINTEF ICT, Telenor. 2011. “Communications Demands in the Arctic with a Forecast for 2015 and 2020.” European Commission. 2016a. “An Integrated European Union Policy for the Arctic,” 1–17. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/arctic_region/docs/160427_joint-communication-an- integrated-european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf.

135 ———. 2016b. “European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service – Ionospheric Correction Algorithm for Galileo Single Frequency Users.” ———. 2016c. “European Union, ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European’s Foreign and Security Policy.’” ———. 2016d. “SAR/Galileo Service Definition Document.” ———. 2016e. “Space Strategy for Europe.” file:///Users/bastiencuoc/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - 2017 - Space Strategy for Europe(2).pdf%0Afile:///Users/bastiencuoc/Library/Application Support/Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Ho. ———. 2018a. “Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the Signing, on Behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean.” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0453&from=EN. ———. 2018b. “Copernicus Service in Support to EU External Action. Product Portfolio.” ———. 2018c. “Copernicus Service in Support to EU External Action. Service Overview.” ———. 2018d. “EU and China Sign Landmark Partnership on Oceans.” ———. 2018e. “Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Establishing the Space Programme of the Union and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and Repealing Regulations (EU) No 912/2010, (EU) No 1285/2013, (EU) No 377/2014 And.” ———. 2019a. “Copernicus Market Report.” https://doi.org/10.2873/011961. ———. 2019b. “Walking on Thin Ice : A Balanced Arctic Strategy for the EU. European Political Strategy Centre.” European Commission, and High Representative of the Union. 2012. “Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council - Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: Progress since 2008 and next Steps. JOIN(2012) 19 Final) and (SWD(2012) 182 Final) and (SWD(2012) 183 Final.” European Council. 2018. “Proposal for a Council Decisionon the Conclusion, on Behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean.” European GNSS Agency. 2016. “EGNOS Open Service (OS) Service Definition Document.” European GNSS Agency (GSA). 2019a. “Prior Information Notice: EGNOS Service Provision2019/S 022-047118.” Prague. ———. 2019b. “Report on Road User Needs and Requirements Outcome of the European GNSS’ User Consultation Platform.” European Maritime Safety Agency. 2018. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance - Info Sheets.” ———. 2019. “Copernicus Maritime Surveillance. Service Overview.” European Union. 2016. “European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service Signal-in-Space Interface Control Document.” Everis. 2018. “Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic Observing Systems. Final Report. 31 January 2018. (Available upon Request. Contact: Srdan Dobricic at the Joint Research Center, [email protected]).” Foti, G., Gommenginger, Jales, Unwin, Shaw, Robertson, and Roselló. 2015. “Spaceborne GNSS Reflectometry for Ocean Winds: First Results from the UK TechDemoSat-1 Mission.” Geophysical Research Letters 42 (13): 5435–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064204.

136 Foti, Giuseppe, Gommenginger, Unwin, Jales, Tye, and Roselló. 2017. “An Assessment of Non-Geophysical Effects in Spaceborne GNSS Reflectometry Data from the UK TechDemoSat-1 Mission.” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 10 (7): 3418–29. German Government. 2019. “Germany ’ s Arctic Policy Guidelines Germany ’ s Arctic Policy Guidelines.” Gueel Sans Ariadna. 2018. “Impact Assessment Study on Societal Benefits of Arctic Observing Systems: Final Report.” Ispra (Italy): European Commission. Hegarty, and Kaplan. 2006. Understanding GPSPrinciples and Applications. Hjort, Karjalainen, Aalto, Westermann, Romanovsky, E. Nelson, Etzelmüller, and Luoto. 2018. “Degrading Permafrost Puts Arctic Infrastructure at Risk by Mid-Century.” Nature Communications 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07557-4. IDA-STPI and SAON. 2017. International Arctic Observations Assessment Framework. IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA, and Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks. Oslo, Norway. ITU. 2007. “Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-2: Technical Characteristics for an Automatic Identification System Using Time Division Multiple Access in the VHF Maritime Mobile Band.” Kern. 2019. “Copernicus PolaR Ice and Snow Topography Altimeter (CRISTAL) Mission Requirements Document, Version 2.0.” Noordwijk, The Netherlands. http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/Copernicus_CRISTAL_MRD_v2. 0_Issued_20190228.pdf. Kim, and Park. 2019. “Innovation: Monitoring Sea Level in the Arctic Using GNSS.” GPS World, 2019. https://www.gpsworld.com/a-tidal-shift-monitoring-sea-level-in-the- arctic-using-gnss/. Kjerstad. 2011. “AIS-Satellite Data Used For Arctic Trafficability Studies In the NE- Passage.” The Twenty-First International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Maui, Hawaii, USA: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers. https://doi.org/. Koetz, Berger, Blommaert, Bello, Drusch, Duca, Gascon, et al. 2019. “Copernicus High Spatio-Temporal Resolution Land Surface Temperature Mission : Mission Requirements Document,” 1–89. http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/Copernicus_LSTM_MRD_v2.0_I ssued20190308.pdf. Lawrence, and Slater. 2005. “A Projection of Severe Near-Surface Permafrost Degradation during the 21st Century.” Geophysical Research Letters 32 (24): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025080. Leppälä, Honkala, Ferrara, Kirkko-Jaakkola, Kuusniemi, and Miettinen-Bellevergue. 2019. “Challenges in Arctic Navigation: The User Perspective.” In European Navigation Conference, ENC 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/EURONAV.2019.8714187. Li, Cardellach, Martín-neira, Fabra, Rius, and Ribó. 2017. “First Spaceborne Phase Altimetry over Sea Ice Using TechDemoSat-1 GNSS-R Signals.” https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074513. Loranty, Berner, Goetz, Jin, and Randerson. 2014. “Vegetation Controls on Northern High Latitude Snow-Albedo Feedback: Observations and CMIP5 Model Simulations.” Global Change Biology 20 (2): 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12391. Mack, Bret-Harte, Hollingsworth, Jandt, Schuur, Shaver, and Verbyla. 2011. “Carbon Loss from an Unprecedented Arctic Tundra Wildfire.” Nature 475 (7357): 489–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10283.

137 Magdaleno, Lacarra, Casa, López, R., and N. 2019. “SBAS GUIDELINES FOR SHIPBORNE RECEIVER: EGNOS PERFORMANCE BASE DONIMORES .A.1046(27).” N N U A L O F N A V I GA T I O N 26. Melia, Haines, and Hawkins. 2016. “Sea Ice Decline and 21st Century Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (18): 9720–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069315. Ministry of External Affairs. 2013. “India and the Arctic.” Myneni, Keeling, Tucker, Asrar, and Nemani. 1997. “Increased Plant Growth in the Northern High Latitudes from 1981 to 1991.” Nature 386 (6626): 698–702. https://doi.org/10.1038/386698a0. Ødemark, Dalsøren, Samset, Berntsen, Fuglestvedt, and Myhre. 2012. “Short-Lived Climate Forcers from Current Shipping and Petroleum Activities in the Arctic.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 12 (4): 1979–93. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 12-1979-2012. Polar Regions Department. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2018. “Beyond the Ice UK Policy towards the Arctic Beyond the Ice.” Polar View Earth Observation Limited. 2016. “User Needs and High-Level Requirements for the next Generation of Observing Systems for the Polar Regions.” Poli, Healy, and Dee. 2010. “Assimilation of Global Positioning System Radio Occultation Data in the ECMWF ERA–Interim Reanalysis.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 136 (653): 1972–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.722. Pompeo. 2019. “Remarks at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting.” Portillo, del, Cameron, and Crawley. 2019. “A Technical Comparison of Three Low Earth Orbit Satellite Constellation Systems to Provide Global Broadband.” Acta Astronautica 159: 123–35. Pörtner, Roberts, Masson-Delmotte, Zhai, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, et al. 2019. “IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.” PwC. 2018a. “Study in Support of the Impact Assessment of an EU GOVSATCOM Initiative.” https://doi.org/10.2873/289144. ———. 2018b. Study in Support of the Impact Assessment of an EU GOVSATCOM Initiative. https://doi.org/10.2873/289144. Reid, Walter, Blanch, and Enge. 2015. “GNSS Integrity in The Arctic.” In ION GNSS+2015. Institute of Navigation. République Francaise. 2016. “The Great Challenge of the Arctic - National Roadmap for the Arctic.” http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/frna_-_eng_-interne_-_prepa_- _17-06-pm-bd-pdf_cle02695b.pdf. Ruf, and Balasubramaniam. 2018. “Development of the CYGNSS Geophysical Model Function for Wind Speed.” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 12 (1): 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2833075. Scottish Government. 2019. “Arctic Connections Scotland’s: Arctic Policy Framework.” Simmons, A. J., and Poli. 2015. “Arctic Warming in ERA-Interim and Other Analyses.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 141 (689): 1147–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2422. Simmons, Adrian, Fellous, Ramaswamy, Trenberth, Asrar, Balmaseda, Burrows, et al. 2016. “Observation and Integrated Earth-System Science: A Roadmap for 2016– 2025.” Advances in Space Research 57 (10): 2037–2103.

138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2016.03.008. Stocker, Qin, Plattner, Alexander, Allen, Bindoff, Bréon, et al. 2014. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In , 33–115. Subgroup Working Group C-ARAIM. 2015. “Milestone 2 Report.” Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group. 2016. “Arctic Broadband. Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic.” Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group, and Arctic Economic Council. 2017. “Arctic Broadband. Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic.” The Moscow Times. 2018. “Russia Will Restrict Foreign Warships in Arctic Ocean,” 2018. Toudal Pedersen, Dybkjær, Eastwood, Heygster, Ivanova, Kern, Lavergne, et al. 2017. “ESA Sea Ice Climate Change Initiative (Sea_Ice_cci): Sea Ice Concentration Climate Data Record from the AMSR-E and AMSR-2 Instruments at 25km Grid Spacing, Version 2.1.” Centre for Environmental Data Analysis, 05 October 2017. United Nations. 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18356/55eb9109-en. US Department of Defense, US Department of Homeland Security. 2008. “Federal Radionavigation Plan.” Springfield, Virginia. Walderhaug, Granja, Horsch, and Hartvigsen. 2015. “Telemedicine Services in Arctic Environments-Challenges for Successful Implementation.” In SHI 2015, Proceedings from The 13th Scandinavien Conference on Health Informatics, June 15-17, 2015, Tromsø, Norway, 98–101. Working Group C-ARAIM Technical Subgroup. 2016. “Milestone 3 Report.” Zhang, and Rothrock. 2003. “Modeling Global Sea Ice with a Thickness and Enthalpy Distribution Model in Generalized Curvilinear Coordinates.” Monthly Weather Review 131 (5): 845–61. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0493(2003)131<0845:MGSIWA>2.0.CO;2.

139 List of abbreviations and definitions

AIS Automatic Identification System AOI Area of Interest Arctic ROOS Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System AWI Alfred Wegener Institute CFP Common Fisheries Policy CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CIMR Copernicus Imaging Microwave Radiometry mission CLS Collecte Location Satellites CMA China Meteorological Administration CMS Copernicus Security Service – Maritime Surveillance CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales CSCDA Copernicus Space Component Data Access CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy CSS Copernicus Security Service DGI Digital Geographic Information DMI Danish Meteorological Institute DTU Technical University of Denmark EE Entrusted Entity EEAS European External Action Service EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System EGNSS European GNSS ELINT Electronics Intelligence ELT Emergency Locator Transmitter EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency EO Earth Observation EOL End Of Life EPIRB Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon ESA European Space Agency EUSATCEN EU Satellite Centre FFSS Fractionated and Federated Satellite Systems FoA Frequency of Arrival GADSS Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System GGTO Galileo To GPS Time Offset GEO Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit GEO Group on Earth Observations

140 GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System Hisdesat Hisdesat Servicios Estrategicos, S.A. HR High Resolution ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICE-CSIC Institude of Space Sciences - Spanish National Research Council IEEC Institute of Space Studies of Catalonia IMEDEA Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated JASON Joint Altimetry Satellite Oceanography Network JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory LBS Location-based Services LEGOS Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie LEO Low Earth Orbit LHCP Left Hand Circular Polarization LOV Observatoire Océanologique de Villefranche sur Mer LRIT Long Range Identification and Tracking LSCE Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement LUT Local Users Terminal MAOC-N Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics MCC Mission Control Center MEO Medium Earth Orbit METOP-SG METOP Second Generation MICINN Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation ML Machine Learning MoD Ministry of Defence MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MS Member State MTCF MEOLUT Tracking Coordination Facility MTG Meteosat Third Generation MTG-I Meteosat Third Generation Imaging satellites MTG-S Meteosat Third Generation Sounding satellites NCC National Coordination Centre NERSC Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWP Numerical Weather Prediction ONION Operational Network of Individual Observation Nodes OS Open Service PLB Personal Location Beacon

141 PNT Positioning, Navigation and Timing PRS Public Regulated Service RCC Rescue Coordination Center RHPP Right Hand Circular Polarization ROHP Radio Occultation and Heavy Precipitation SAF Satellite Application Facility SaR Search-and-Rescue SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar SEA Copernicus Security Service – Support to EU External Action SGC SAR Galileo Coverage SGSC SAR/Galileo Service Centre SIC Sea Ice Concentration SIGINT Signals Intelligence SLSTR Sea and Land Surface Temperature Radiometer SPOC Search and Rescue Point Of Contact ToA Time of Arrival UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research UNODC UN Office on Drugs and Crime VHR Very High Resolution VMS Vessel Monitoring System VTMIS Vessel Traffic Management Integrated Services VTS Vessel Traffic Services

142 List of figures Figure 1: Arctic sea transport routes and ports. Source: www.nordregio.org ...... 11 Figure 2: Galileo and EGNOS programmes governance ...... 17 Figure 3: Coordination and management of the Copernicus programme ...... 18 Figure 4: Copernicus Space activities in the Polar Regions between 2016-2019...... 18 Figure 5: Past and future changes for Arctic sea ice extent (in September) and snow cover (in June). The relative change is computed with respect to 1986-2005 using two scenarios. RCP2.6 corresponds to a low greenhouse gas emission scenario whereas RCP8.5 is a high greenhouse gas emission scenario. Source: IPCC ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (Pörtner et al. 2019) ...... 21 Figure 6: Distribution of permafrost in the baseline (2000–2014) and future (2041–2060) climates. The location and observed mean annual ground temperature (MAGT) of the data points (boreholes) are shown with coloured circles, from Hjort et al. 2018...... 22 Figure 7: Sentinel-1 revisit and coverage frequency...... 31 Figure 8: Sentinel-1 polarisation and observation mode...... 32 Figure 9: Footprints of Sentinel 1 (EW mode) over 50° North for the full period of acquisitions (2014- 2020) ...... 32 Figure 10: Number of Sentinel 1 acquisitions computed over the full period (2014-2019) with a 250 km grid using the extra wide (EW, left) and interferometric wide (IW, right) modes...... 33 Figure 11: Coverage and revisit of Sentinel-2...... 33 Figure 12: Number of Sentinel 2 acquisitions computed over the full period (July 2015- September September 2019). The white squares with no acquisition are due to the acquisition plan...... 34 Figure 13: OLCI mean revisit times with a two-satellite configuration, in red 2 days are required to have revisit at equator, in blue less than 0.5 days at high latitude...... 34 Figure 14: SLSTR Mean Revisit Time with Two-Satellite Configuration9...... 35 Figure 15: Sea ice concentration charts from the Copernicus Marine Environment Service (CMEMS)...... 41 Figure 16. Example of activation received by the Copernicus Emergency service on 15th July 2018 for iceberg delineation and risk assessment using satellite images from Spot 6/7 for the pre-event and Cosmo-Skymed as a post-event image...... 43 Figure 17: Damage assessment showing final burn area in Sisimiut, Greenland using Spot 6/7 images...... 44 Figure 18: Overview of wildfires monitored in the Arctic region between January and October 2019. Estimated burnt areas provided by the GWIS are depicted in red...... 45 Figure 19: Summary of the different Eumetsat SAF ...... 52 Figure 20: KSAT delivers oil and vessel detection services for tasking areas 5,6,7,8 and 9...... 54 Figure 22: SIOS facilities/infrastructure in Svalbard ...... 55 Figure 23: EMODnet ship density map of the entire year 2017 covering the European Arctic. All data away from the coast are collected by satellite...... 57 Figure 24: Simulated number of revisits in 24 hours obtained with the CIMR mission in the Arctic. (www.cimr.eu) ...... 60 Figure 25: L-band data shows an increased coverage and availability of ground motion information as compared to C-band data (here for an area in Nepal around 2006) (from (Kern 2019)) ...... 61 Figure 26: Galileo satellites geometry as a function of the user latitude...... 66 Figure 27: Maximum satellite elevation as a function of the user latitude. Galileo, GPS and GLONASS satellites are used...... 66

143 Figure 28: Position (3D) dilution of precision and horizontal (2D) dilution of precision are shown over the Arctic region...... 67 Figure 29: 2D positioning errors <95%> are shown: horizontal (left) and vertical positioning error (right) considering a dual frequency user and PDOP lower than 6. Single point positioning considering Signal in Space (SiS) errors only has been used...... 68 Figure 30: Search and Rescue areas in the Arctic Region...... 69 Figure 31: SaR/Galileo European coverage area and ground facilities ...... 70 Figure 32: Galileo EWS architecture. (From GRALLE project)...... 72 Figure 33: EGNOS satellite elevation angle as a function of the user latitude...... 73 Figure 34: EGNOS Open Service coverage area...... 74 Figure 35: Ionospheric Grid Points considering EGNOS satellite PRN 136, colour code for the GIVE values...... 75 Figure 36: Time evolution of the cumulative number of EGNOS-based LPV and LPV200 operations in the Arctic region. The dashed lines are the real number of operations while the continuous lines represent the trend...... 76 Figure 37: Time evolution of the number of airports in the Arctic Region with active or planned EGNOS-based procedures...... 76 Figure 38: ARAIM Availability as a function of the user location. The requirements used to compute availability are: Vertical Alert Limit (VAL) = 35 m, Horizontal Alert Limit (HAL) = 40 m and Effective Monitoring Threshold (EMT) = 15 m. Scenario with 24 GPS + 24 Galileo satellites, dual-frequency iono-free combination...... 78 Figure 39: Orbit configuration and limitations over polar areas ...... 80 Figure 40. Overview of the user communities and missions for each use-case family of GovSatCom users. Source: PwC 2018a...... 81 Figure 41: Transmission of GNSS and Argos data to the Processing centre and the users (left side). The instantaneous spatial footprint obtained with one Argos satellite pass is indicated (right). Source: Adapted from Argos/CLS ...... 85 Figure 42: SARAL Orbit tracks over the Arctic computed along a day. Orbits are represented using SAT-LAB...... 85 Figure 43. Iridium Next Constellation in the Arctic region. Orbits have been depicted using the AGI STK software...... 88 Figure 44: System design of satellite-based broadband internet of OneWeb...... 89 Figure 45. Various types of user terminals...... 90 Figure 46. Right: Solar powered user terminal, left: Residential Pico Cell with 200m range...... 91 Figure 47. Arctic coverage using the current six active satellites from OneWeb (last status February 2020)...... 91 Figure 48. Indicative satellite network portal locations (gateways) of OneWeb.34 ...... 92 Figure 49. Orbits of mega constellations: OneWeb (upper left), Starlink (upper right) and Telesat LEO...... 94 Figure 50. Simulation of LoS of OneWeb, Telesat and Starlink (SpaceX) systems in different latitudes (left), and land mass location with population centres (right)...... 95 Figure 51: VTEC monitoring at 2000UT of day 360 of 2018 over the Northern pole cap. Image generated in the framework of the European Commission Service Contract POLarGIMs...... 98 Figure 52: The two domains for the reanalysis, a Western domain (labelled “IGB”) and an Eastern domain (labelled “AROME-Arctic”). Credit: https://climate.copernicus.eu/ ...... 99

144 Figure 53: Surface air temperature anomaly for winter, spring, summer and autumn 2018 relative to the respective seasonal averages for the period 1981-2010. Winter values relate to December 2017 - February 2018. Data source: ERA5. Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)/ECMWF. . 100 Figure 54: Timeline of the GNSS radio occultation missions. Source: Axel von Engeln (Eumetsat, May 2020)...... 102 Figure 55: Surface characterization from GNSS-reflectometry (TechDemosat-1) over the Arctic region for the August and maximum extent in 2016. Red displays a sea ice assignment and blue an open water assignment. The black shaded area represents transition between sea ice and water during the month using the in the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative product (Toudal Pedersen et al. 2017). From (Cartwright et al. 2019) ...... 103 Figure 56: Final expected OG1 and OG2 satellite footprints—complete global coverage. Image © ORBCOMM All Rights Reserved, 2016...... 106 Figure 57: exactEarth satellite constellation...... 106 Figure 58: Sequential logical steps of the VTA and IL methodologies ...... 110 Figure 59: Arctic sea ice extent. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark grey. The grey areas around the median line show the interquartile and interquartile ranges (25th -75th) of the data. The averages for each decade are shown in different colours: 1979-1990 (orange); 1991-2000 (light green); 2001-2010 (black); 2011-2018 (light blue). The year 2012, with minimum summer sea–ice cover, is shown with dashed red line. (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)...... 112 Figure 60, left panel: Hypothetical open water vessel routes sailing through the September sea ice thickness field for eight recent years from the Pan‐Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) reanalysis (Zhang and Rothrock 2003). In the small box the main Arctic transit options are shown. Central and right panels: Fastest available September trans‐Arctic routes from multimodel projections. Routes for RCP2.6 (a) and RCP8.5 (b) for the period 2015-2030 (15 consecutive Septembers, from five GCMs each with three ensemble members, equating to 225 simulations per panel). Source: Melia et al. 2016...... 116 Figure 61 Estimates of weighted impact of observing systems on the short term weather forecast at the ECMWF in August 2019. RO observations (“GPSRO” in the figure) contribute by 3-4% to the Forecast Sensitivity to Observations Impact (FSOI)...... 118 Figure 62: Sea-ice thickness estimated from the SMOS mission observations. Left panel shows the November 2012 sea-ice cover and thickness. The right panel shows changes in sea-ice thickness during November between 2010 and 2016. (Source: http://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/SMOS/Satellite_cousins_have_ice_covered) 119 Figure 63: Borders of the Search and Rescue region of the North Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centres (JRCC North Norway), located in Bodø. Right top panel shows the total number of alerts received by the North-JRCC for every month after 2012, for sea, land and air emergencies. Right bottom panel shows the number of distress signals handled by Cospas/Sarsat NMCC for sea (EPIRB), land (PLB), and Air (ELT)...... 122 Figure 64: Short description of KPSO associated to sea-ice conditions. The impact on the value tree was assessed by experts in terms of number of SBA and SBA sub-areas, and key objectives for each KPSO. (Source: EVERIS,2018; Dobricic et al., 2018)...... 124 Figure 65 Aggregate connections between all sea-ice KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: Everis 2018; Dobricic et al. 2018)...... 126 Figure 66: Connections between “Ship routing” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018)...... 127 Figure 67: Connections between “Search and Rescue” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018)...... 127 Figure 68: Connections between “Oil spill” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018)...... 128 Figure 69: Connections between “Offshore installations” KPSOs and the SBAs (Source: EVERIS 2018, Dobricic et al., 2018)...... 128

145

146 List of tables Table 1: Working groups of the Arctic Council...... 13 Table 2: Proposed EU space programme components with their function, budget breakdown, and objectives...... 16 Table 3: EO needs listed by scientific activities and corresponding sectoral applications ...... 23 Table 4: Sentinel missions, status and key features. Repeat is the interval that image acquisitions of the same area can be repeated under exactly the same angle. Revisit is the interval that a specific area can be imaged combining different imaging geometries, assuming the satellite is always collecting data (theoretical best times)...... 30 Table 5: sSmmary table of the Arctic user-required functions classified according to land, coastal, marine and atmosphere domains for the Sentinels satellites. Entries: + means the satellite provides very limited information for the function, ++ moderate information, +++ very good information, and empty means no information or unknown...... 37 Table 6: List of the different Thematic Data Assembly Centres, with the observations available and the specificity of the products for the Arctic region, infrastructure partners and users...... 39 Table 7 : List of European active satellites used by CAMS through data assimilation in the global real- time forecast and global reanalysis systems. The different instruments on board the various European satellites are indicated with the corresponding parameters measured...... 42 Table 8: Summary of the satellite observations provided by the Arctic ROOS and the partners involved in the products delivery...... 55 Table 9: Summary of the main data, services and products provided in near real time by C-Core for Greenland...... 56 Table 10: EU funded Arctic research and innovation H2020 projects ...... 58 Table 11. Use-case families, user communities and actors for Arctic (PwC 2018a)...... 82 Table 12. Main commercial satellite operators used by EU governmental users (PwC 2018b) ...... 82 Table 13. European systems (dual-use and military) offering capacity and services to governmental users (taken from (PwC 2018a) ) ...... 83 Table 14. Broadband connection technologies and their pros and cons...... 87 Table 15: Main characteristics of the 3 future candidate Mega Constellations: OneWeb, Starlink, and Telesat LEO including number of satellites, orbits descriptions, number of gateway stations, mission status and estimated Internet Throughput...... 93 Table 16: Additional interviews with stakeholders ...... 111 Table 17: Number of SAR operations for two decades, 1995-2004 and 2005-2014, and grouped by different causes...... 121

147 Annexes

Annex 1. Galileo Open Service additional analysis The contribution of Galileo in the Arctic is further analysed considering some key indicators are shown in the following figures. Specifically, the mean number of satellite visible from each point of the Earth is shown in Figure 69. It can be seen that the average number of Galileo visible satellites in the Arctic region is similar to the values observed for other regions of the Earth. In particular, it emerges that the average number of satellites varies between 6.7 and 7.6. Considering only the Arctic region as defined in section 5, the values are between 6.7 and 7.7.

Figure 69: Mean number of Galileo visible satellites as a function of the user location. Another key performance indicator for the navigation solution is the Position Dilution Of Precision (PDOP) which gives an indication of the satellite geometry. Considering a low to moderate PDOP (value lower than 5) meaning that the satellite geometry is close to usual conditions but could be improved the positioning availability is shown on the world map in Figure 70. From the figure, it emerges that the position availability in the Arctic region is around 93%. The value is higher than in the middle latitude region where the value varies between 92.75% and 93%.

Figure 70: Positioning availability considering a PDOP lower than 5.

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

SaR service exploits four elements summarized in Section 5.2.2: Distress radio-beacons, which transmit a coded message on the 406 MHz distress frequency via satellite and earth stations to the nearest rescue co-ordination centre. Different types of devices are currently available, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT); specifically, for aviation, Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) for maritime use, and Personal Location Beacon (PLB) for personal use. Instruments on board satellites which detect the signals transmitted by distress radio beacons; Local Users Terminals (LUTs) which receive and process the satellite signals to generate distress alerts. Three different types of receiving stations, depending on the satellites orbit LEOLUT, GEOLUT and MEOLUT respectively (MEOLUT for Galileo). Mission Control Center (MCC) is able to receive alerts produced by LUTs and forwards them to Rescue Coordination Centers (RCCs), Search and Rescue Point of Contact (SPOC) or other MCCs.

Figure 71: Search and Rescue infrastructure including the emergency beacons activated from the users, the transmission of the different satellites, the local users’ terminals (LUT), the Mission Control Center (MCC).

A possible evolution of the SaR Galileo return link is currently under discussion and needs to be discussed and accepted by Cospas/Sarsat, the proposal of the evolution include the following capabilities: The remote activation command will be exploited when a user is considered to be in a distress situation. In addition it will be particularly useful in the case of missing or lost boat; or to localize a non-cooperative or missing vehicle. Finally, the remote activation could be used to improve the quality of the received signal: if several beacons are available on the same vehicle, and one of these beacons is activated, another beacon can be remotely activated if the first is not received with a good quality. The remote deactivation can be used to stop the transmission (alert or cancellation) of an active beacon. This functionality is of particular relevance when a beacon is accidentally activated and cannot be manually deactivated; or it can be used in the case that the user is no longer in distress. Finally, the

149 remote deactivation can be used to have a more robust cancellation service, in particular if there is a risk that it is a false cancellation. Transmission parameters change is a command broadcast trough the Return Link channel. In order to avoid signal collision, when multiple beacons are activated in the same area. This allows an improvement of the localization capabilities. The battery of a beacon in the case of distress is a fundamental aspect, hence to preserve the battery duration the transmission rate of a beacon can be reduced. Finally, changing the rotating field it is possible to broadcast additional data (e.g. temperature, wind, sea state etc.). The messaging service is a SAR/Galileo service which may use both the Forward Link and the Return Link channels (navigation frequency channel) to exchange messages between the RCC and the user for an active 406 MHz distress beacon. The messaging service is designed for beacon with an identified and reachable user, i.e. beacons with manual activation capability and portable beacons. Messaging service allows to improve the management of the distress situation; the service has two operation modes one or two way messaging. It is based on Short Messaging Service (SMS) which are sent using the Return Link Service. This service is particularly useful when no other available or reliable communication system are present. Distress position sharing. This functionality allows to share the position of an alert is with all the Galileo receivers in a defined area. This capability is fundamental for maritime activities, it can be used to trigger the solidarity at sea which is a common value for people operating at sea, also the SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) convention and report such aspect.

150

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

Acronym Type of Institute User group Web link definition project

SAON Sustaining International https://www.arcticobserving.org/ Internationa Arctic consortium l Observing Network

ESA European Service provider https://www.esa.int/ International Space Agency

EU- A European International https://eu-polarnet.eu/ EU H2020 Polarnet network to consortium Project co-develop and advance European Polar Research

INTARO Integrated International http://www.intaros.eu/ EU H2020 S Arctic consortium Project observation Service provider system

Permafro Permafrost International https://climate.esa.int/en/projects/permafr ESA project st project consortium ost/ Service provider

Mercator- Ocean Service provider https://www.mercator-ocean.fr/en/ France Ocean science- based services

ECMWF European Scientific https://www.ecmwf.int/ International Centre for Research Medium- Service provider Range Weather Forecasts

WGMS World Glacier Scientific https://wgms.ch/ International Monitoring Research Service Service provider

WMO World Agency https://public.wmo.int/en International Meteorologic al Organisation

ICES International Agency https://www.ices.dk/ International Council for Service provider the

151 Exploration of the Sea

Blue- Arctic Impact Scientific http://blue-action.eu/ EU H2020 Action on Weather Research Project and Climate

WEMC World Energy Agency https://www.wemcouncil.org/wp/ International & International Meteorology consortium Council

ICE-ARC Ice, Climate, Scientific https://www.ice-arc.eu/ EU FP7 Economics – Research Project Arctic Research on Change

STPI Science and Scientific https://www.ida.org/ida-ffrdcs/science- USA Technology Research and-technology-policy-institute Policy

Institute

FMI Finnish Scientific https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ Finland Meteorologic Research al Institute Service provider

IASC International Agency https://iasc.info/ International Arctic International Science consortium Committee

CAFF Conservation Agency https://www.caff.is/ International of Arctic Flora International and Fauna consortium

ISAC- Institute of Scientific https://www.isac.cnr.it/en Italy CNR Atmospheric Research Sciences and Climate, National Research Council

The main goal of the workshop within the study on the “Impact Assessment on Societal Benefits Of Arctic Observing Systems” was to capture the consensual position of the participants with regards to the: - Main observational systems in the Arctic that should be prioritised for quantitative analysis; - Cost estimation methodologies for the main observational systems; - Key products, services and outcomes (KPSO) produced by the main observational systems; - Societal Benefits resulting from the KPSO; - Studies that collect users’ requirements and can be used for the final report. The questions around which the discussions were centered were divided into two different topics and they are listed below.

152 Observational Systems:  Do you think that there is a need to classify observational systems in a different way? (different to the seven themes proposed)  Which do you think are the main observational systems in the ARCTIC?  How can we estimate the costs for the main observational systems of each theme?  What observational systems do you foresee to have in the future? Societal benefits areas:  What key products, services or outcomes can be produced for the main observational systems?  Can you link these key products, services or outcomes to one or more societal benefits? Surveys A survey was created targeting the areas of interest through 27 questions. The questions addressed concrete requirements related to observational systems and their future maintenance and creation of additional needed OS, KPSOs, data sharing, societal benefits and costs. 1. List the observational systems you have/own 2. List the observational systems you use (but don't own) 3. List all your key products, services or outcomes per observational systems that you have and/or use 4. On which observational networks do you rely? 5. What categories of observational systems do you have and/or use? 6. Which physical, biogeochemical and human dimension variables do the observational systems you have and/or use observe? 7. To which of the following themes would you classify/link the observational systems you have and/or use? 8. Are there any missing themes under which your observational systems can be classified? 9. Which additional products, services or outcomes could result from the observational systems that you have and/or use? 10. Which additional observational systems could be used to enhance your products, services or outcomes? 11. Do you foresee any other future products, services or outcomes besides the ones deriving from the observational systems you have and/or use? 12. Do you have key products, services or outcomes linked to particular economic activities that are emerging due to global warming? 13. Which economic sectors are using your key products, services or outcomes? 14. Do you share your data with other economic sectors? If yes, which ones? Are you planning or targetting additional economic sectors to share your data with? 15. Could you associate your key products, services or outcomes to any of the 12 specific societal benefits listed below? 16. Do your products, services or outcomes produce any additional societal or economic benefits other than the 12 mentioned above? 17. Which of your products, services or outcomes are producing more societal benefits or could potentially produce more societal benefits? 18. Can you think of future benefits other than the ones currently existing? 19. Do you estimate the societal benefits resulting from your key products, services or outcomes? If yes, which one(s) and how do you estimate it (qualitative and quantitative estimates)? 20. Could you provide the high level estimation of your observational systems investment cost?

153 21. Could you provide the high level estimation of your observational systems operational cost per year? 22. Do you perform internal cost-benefit analysis of your observational systems? 23. Do you have a two-five-year investment plan in your observational systems? (improve current/new services) 24. Do you plan to build new observational systems besides the ones you currently have? If so, could you briefly describe them? What would be the provided service, the benefit and the cost? 25. Do you plan to extend the coverage or frequency of your existing observational systems? What would be the service, the benefit and the cost? 26. Are there potentially important observational systems in the Arctic that are currently missing? 27. Which future observational systems in the Arctic would improve your key products, services and outcomes?

154

KJ

-

NA

-

30629

-

EN

-

N

doi:10.2760/270136

ISBN 978-92-76-32079-1 155