The Governance of Galileo

The Governance of Galileo Report 62 January 2017 Amiel Sitruk Serge Plattard Short title: ESPI Report 62 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in January 2017 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 62; January 2017. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 62 2 January 2017 The Governance of Galileo Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Purposes, Principle and Current State of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) 7 1.2 Description of Galileo 7 1.3 A Brief History of Galileo and Its Governance 9 1.4 Current State and Next Steps 10 2. The Challenges of Galileo Governance 12 2.1 Political Challenges 12 2.1.1 Giving to the EU and Its Member States an Effective Instrument of Sovereignty 12 2.1.2 Providing Effective Interaction between the European Stakeholders 12 2.1.3 Dealing with Security Issues Related to Galileo 13 2.1.4 Ensuring a Strong Presence on the International Scene 13 2.2 Economic Challenges 14 2.2.1 Setting up a Cost-Effective Organization 14 2.2.2 Fostering the Development of a Downstream Market Associated with Galileo 14 2.2.3 Fostering Indirect Benefits 15 2.3 Technical Challenges 15 2.3.1 Successfully Exploiting the System 15 2.3.2 Ensuring the Evolution of the System 16 2.3.3 Technically Enabling “GNSS Diplomacy” 16 3. The Exercise of Galileo Governance within the European Framework 17 3.1 Framework of the European Space Programmes 17 3.1.1 The Space Ambitions of the European Union 17 3.1.2 The EU-ESA Framework 17 3.1.3 The Galileo Programme in the EU Space Policy 18 3.2 Galileo Governance Scheme, Actors and Prerogatives 18 3.2.1 Definition of the Governance Scheme 18 3.2.2 Phases of the Programme 19 3.2.3 Main Actors 20 3.2.4 Relations between the Main Actors 25 3.2.5 Other Actors in Governance 26 4. Current Issues in the Galileo Governance Scheme 29 4.1 Transversal Aspects 29 4.1.1 The Necessarily Complex Governance of the Programme 29 4.1.2 The Constraining Framework of the European Union 30 4.1.3 Issues Caused by the Programme Management at the Political Level 31 4.1.4 Issues Relevant to the Current Status of the GSA 32 4.1.5 The Uneven Interests of Member States 33 4.2 Exploitation 33 4.2.1 Influence of Resources Limitations on Exploitation 34 4.2.2 Complexity of the Exploitation Scheme 34 4.2.3 Issues Related to the Relationship with ESA and GSOp 34 4.3 Security 35 4.3.1 Influence of the Complexity of the Governance Scheme on Security Management 35 4.3.2 A Misperception of Security Issues 36 4.3.3 Some Innovative but Incomplete Solutions 37 4.3.4 The Specific Case of the PRS 37 4.4 International Relations 38 4.5 Commercial Development, Uses Spread and Innovation 39 ESPI Report 62 3 January 2017 4.5.1 Lack of a Standardized Input Structure for Galileo Users 39 4.5.2 Commercial Service and Liability Issues 40 4.5.3 Issues Related to the Indirect Benefits of Galileo 41 4.6 Evolution of the Programme 41 5. Towards an Optimisation of the Governance Scheme for Galileo 42 5.1 Scenario Scheme 1: Basically Keeping the Governance Scheme Provided by the GNSS Regulation 42 5.2 Scenario Scheme 2: Creation of a Single Common roof GNSS Agency 44 5.3 Scenario Scheme 3: The GSA as a Coordinating Agency for a Galileo Steering Board 47 6. Conclusion 49 Annex 51 A.1 Other Components of the “System of Systems” 51 A.1.1 Other GNSS 51 A.1.2 RNSS 54 A.1.3 International Organisations 55 A.2 Galileo Uses and Communities of Users 56 A.2.1 Location-Based Services 56 A.2.2 Road Applications 56 A.2.3 Aviation 56 A.2.4 Rail 57 A.2.5 Maritime 57 A.2.6 Agriculture 58 A.2.7 Surveying 58 A.2.8 Timing and Synchronization 58 A.2.9 Potential Military Uses 59 A.3 Location of the Different Galileo Centres 60 A.4 Galileo Architectural Overview 61 A.5 GSA Headcount 62 A.6 Signals Broadcasted by Galileo and the other Navigation Satellite Systems 63 A.7 U.S. Organisational Structure for GPS Governance 65 A.8 List of Interviewees and Contacted Persons 66 List of Acronyms 68 Acknowledgements 71 About the Authors 71 ESPI Report 62 4 January 2017 The Governance of Galileo Executive Summary The rise of the European Union (EU) as a main Unfortunately, the Galileo programme has European space actor is reshuffling the cards faced important problems and this has re- in the European architectural organization of sulted in significant delays – upcoming exploi- space activities. While, until recently, space tation is 13 years behind the original schedule activities were managed by the Member States – and the final cost of the programme – 9.9 through their national agencies or within the billion € (under current economic conditions) European Space Agency (ESA), the emergence by 2020 – has tripled. These tribulations have of the EU in this field has introduced a third led to successive evolutions in its governance institutional actor. They are all ultimately em- scheme, until the most recent changes in anations of the European states, but their pur- 2013, which are based on a triangular config- poses, their competencies, the principles they uration of the Commission, ESA and the GSA. are based on, and the rules they follow, are Since then, the deployment of the constella- different. This brings about a need for new tion has taken place at a steady rate, with ini- governance schemes, able to coordinate space tial services having started in December 2016. activities appropriately to get the best out- In this report, we undertake an analysis of the comes from their joint initiatives in the space current European governance of the European field. GNSS, focusing on Galileo, which is seen as a So far, this new ambition of the European Un- potential laboratory for the governance ion has translated into the development of schemes of the next European space initia- programmes in two areas: Earth environment tives. The state of play in the exploitation and security monitoring with Copernicus, and phase that has just started is reviewed, in or- satellite navigation with EGNOS and Galileo. der to identify potential improvements in the However, there is a difference between those current setting. In particular, this study will two domains: the European States and ESA pay close attention to the positioning of the have carried out Earth monitoring activities for GSA, a new actor called upon to play a critical decades, but EGNOS and Galileo are the first role in the programme. European satellite navigation programmes and The focus on the GSA is motivated by the cen- the choices made for their governance reflect tral role this agency will now play in two key this new leadership. Unlike Copernicus, where areas: the EU still strongly relies on ESA, EUMETSAT and national capabilities for operations, the EU 1. Security. Due to the pervasiveness of has fully taken over programme management GNSS in our daily lives, Galileo/EGNOS for, and exploitation of, EGNOS and Galileo, must ensure service reliability and conti- through its executive arm, the European Com- nuity to remain credible. mission. In order to deal efficiently with those new kinds of missions, it has also created a 2. International relations since it would be le- dedicated entity, the European GNSS Agency gitimate after 2020, in our view, for the (GSA). GSA role to be at par with other GNSS/RNSS providers to foster global But EGNOS and Galileo should also be distin- governance “rules of the road” for main- guished from each other. EGNOS, as a Satel- taining a harmonious coexistence between lite Based Augmentation System (SBAS), has these different PNT systems. been created to complement a GNSS – initially the GPS – and thus does not resolve the issue Regarding methodology, the information gath- of dependency on the U.S.. Galileo is a far ered to prepare this report is based on two more complex and ambitious project, aimed at kinds of inputs: endowing the EU and its Member States with 1. Interviews with different actors involved in their own GNSS-type Positioning, Navigation Galileo’s governance, and stakeholders in and Timing (PNT) system, providing worldwide its environment (users of Galileo, other services. It is the largest infrastructure project European entities etc.), conducted under ever undertaken by the EU, a major sover- Chatham House rules; eignty tool and a great opportunity for Euro- peans to access the promising markets of 2. Analysis of the currently applicable regu- GNSS, which cover a broad range of areas. lations and other documents that define ESPI Report 62 5 January 2017 the governance framework, as well as a and the resulting absence of an entity fully re- literature review.

Load more