EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 29.5.2013 SWD(2013) 190 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Copernicus Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 {COM(2013) 312 final} {SWD(2013) 191 final} EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Copernicus Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 EN 2 EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties...............................................5 1.1. Identification.................................................................................................................5 1.2. Organisation and timing ...............................................................................................5 1.3. Stakeholders consultation.............................................................................................5 1.4. Scrutiny by the Commission Impact Assessment Board..............................................8 2. Context..........................................................................................................................9 3. Problem definition......................................................................................................12 3.1. The problem that requires action ................................................................................12 3.2. Upgrading the system to routine operational status....................................................14 3.3. Underlying drivers of the problem .............................................................................14 3.4. Establishment of an appropriate governance structure...............................................14 3.5. Who are the most affected groups? ............................................................................15 3.6. Foreseen evolution of the problem .............................................................................16 3.7. The risk of non-sustainability .....................................................................................17 3.8. Does the EU have the right to act? .............................................................................17 4. Objectives ...................................................................................................................19 4.1. General objectives......................................................................................................19 4.2. Specific Europe 2020 policy objectives .....................................................................19 4.3. Operational policy objectives.....................................................................................20 4.4. Consistency with and relevance to other EU policies ................................................20 4.5. Synergies with other DG Enterprise programmes ......................................................21 5. Options and impact analysis .......................................................................................23 5.1. Different options on budget allocation .......................................................................23 5.2. Methodology...............................................................................................................25 5.3. Options description.....................................................................................................27 5.4. Analysis of impact of options on budget allocation ...................................................28 5.5. Cost-Benefit Analysis.................................................................................................31 5.6. Key enabling factors and the impact of a reduced budget..........................................32 5.7. Expenditure profile considerations.............................................................................33 5.8. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................33 6. Options and impact analysis on Governance..............................................................34 6.1. State of play ................................................................................................................34 EN 3 EN 6.2. Options on programme governance............................................................................35 6.2.1. Option A: Commission in charge of overall coordination and management .............35 6.2.2. Option B: Delegation of the management to an existing European Agency..............35 6.2.3. Option C: Delegation of the coordination and management to the European Space Agency........................................................................................................................35 6.2.4. Option D: Delegation of the management to a new Agency ......................................35 6.3. Impact analysis on governance...................................................................................35 6.3.1. Option A: Commission in charge of management .....................................................35 6.3.2. Option B: Delegation of the management to an existing European agency...............36 6.3.3. Option C: Delegation of the coordination and management to the European Space Agency........................................................................................................................36 6.3.4. Option D: Delegation of the management to a new agency .......................................36 6.4. Decisions on governance ............................................................................................36 6.5. Considerations on ownership......................................................................................37 7. Monitoring and Evaluation.........................................................................................38 7.1. Evaluation...................................................................................................................38 7.2. Monitoring ..................................................................................................................41 7.3. Anti-fraud measures....................................................................................................41 EN 4 EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 1.1. Identification The European Earth Observation programme Copernicus (originally called GMES, Global Monitoring for Environment and Security), is coordinated by the GMES/Copernicus unit of DG Enterprise and Industry. 1.2. Organisation and timing This Impact Assessment is foreseen to accompany a legislative proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Earth observation programme (GMES/Copernicus). It is based on a previous version that was elaborated in consultation with an impact assessment steering group that met four times and was consulted on the draft impact assessment. The following DGs were invited to the IASG: ENV, CLIMA, RTD, AGRI, ESTAT, JRC, TAXUD, DEVCO, ECHO, INFSO, ENER, MOVE, EEAS, MARE, REGIO, JUST, HOME, OLAF, BUDG and SG. This report also builds on previous impact assessment studies, in particular those accompanying the Commission proposal on the GMES/Copernicus programme and its Initial Operations1 (GIO) and the Commission Communication on the challenges and next steps for the GMES/Copernicus Space component2. As the existing Regulation concerns the initial operations period and runs until 2013, there is a need for a new Regulation and for a new impact assessment. • This is the first impact assessment of GMES/Copernicus that is looking at the programme as a whole, including the three components (space, in situ and services) and at all the six services. • By now two services (i.e. Emergency Management Service and Land Service) are already operational, while the other four services are close to being operational and more information is available on costs and benefits of those services. The major study used for this impact assessment is the cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the EC and conducted by SpaceTec Partners in 2013 (see Annex I). This, in turn, builds on Booz & Company’s “Cost- Benefit Analysis for GMES” (CBA3) completed in 2011 and on SpaceTec Partners' "Assessing the Economic Value of GMES/Copernicus: European Earth Observation and GMES/Copernicus Downstream Services Market Study" completed in 2012. The executive summaries of these studies are presented in the Annexes V, VI and VII. 1.3. Stakeholders consultation This impact assessment is based on a continuous consultation of external stakeholders which started early in the GMES/Copernicus development process. Since the creation of the European Commission's "GMES Bureau" in 2006 a rolling process of stakeholders' consultation has been in place on GMES/Copernicus. This consultation process, launched with the Communication entitled “GMES: from concept to reality”4, led firstly to the adoption of the 2008 Communication entitled "GMES: we care for a safer 1 SEC(2009)639 of 20.5.2009 2 SEC(2009)1440 of 28.10.2009 3 Hereafter referred to as “Booz CBA” - available at http://copernicus.eu/pages-principales/library/study- reports/ 4 COM (2005) 565 final of 10 November 2005 EN 5 EN Planet"5. Further consultation was carried out in order to prepare the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the European Earth