3 Global Navigation Satellite System
| (24372)
7618/03
COM(03)123
| Commission Communication on integration of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) programme into the Galileo programme.
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 19 March 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 25 March 2003
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 25 April 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (19950) 6528/99: HC 34-xvii (1998-99), paragraph 1 (28 April 1999); (21872) 14304/00: HC 28-i (2000-01), paragraph 17 (13 December 2000), HC 28-vii (2000-01), paragraph 8 (28 February 2001), HC 152-vii (2001-02), paragraph 6 (21 November 2001) and HC 152-ix (2001-02), paragraph 14 (5 December 2001); (22518) 10251/01: HC 152-vii (2001-02), paragraph 6 (21 November 2001) and HC 152-ix (2001-02), paragraph 14 (5 December 2001); and (23816) 12563/02: HC 152-xli (2001-02), paragraph 4 (6 November 2002) and HC 63-ii (2002-03), paragraph 9 (27 November 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 The European Community has a two-phase policy for developing
a global navigation system (GNSS). The first phase, GNSS 1, is
the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) programme.
EGNOS is designed to augment GPS (the US Global Positioning System)
and GLONASS (the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System).
It will give a high-performance navigation and positioning service,
superior to that currently available in Europe, using signals
from the GPS and GLONASS satellite constellations. It will initially
increase the reliability of the services provided by the GPS and
GLONASS signals in Europe and the Atlantic Ocean, with expansion
possibilities in the Indian Ocean, South America, Africa, the
Middle East and Central Asia. EGNOS is being carried out under
a tripartite agreement between the Community, the European Space
Agency (ESA) and the European Organisation for the Safety
of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). It will come into operation in
2004.
3.2 The second phase, GNSS 2, of the Community policy
is the programme, named Galileo, to establish a new satellite
navigation constellation with appropriate ground infrastructure.
It is predicated on the presumption that Europe ought not to rely
indefinitely on the GPS/GLONASS systems, augmented by EGNOS. Galileo
is being carried out in conjunction with the European Space Agency
under the management of the Galileo Joint Undertaking (JU). We
and our predecessors have considered this programme several times[3]
and the matter was debated by European Standing Committee A in
June 1999.[4]
The document
3.3 The document describes EGNOS and its characteristics
and development, examines its costs and advantages and its contribution
to the Galileo programme and proposes a framework for the operation
of EGNOS and its integration into the Galileo programme. In preparing
the document the Commission asked Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC)
to undertake a study of the "optimal way to proceed with
EGNOS in relation to the Galileo programme", as part of a
wider study of the Galileo business plan.
3.4 In the Communication the Commission first reviews
the development of EGNOS and sets it in the context of equivalent
programmes covering the United States, India, China and Japan.
It notes the technical and political advantages of EGNOS and describes
the programme's benefits for aviation, maritime and inland waterway
transport, railways, road transport, agriculture and the users
of synchronised networks such as financial institutions and energy
utilities.
3.5 The Commission says EGNOS has enabled development
of a technical capability in the advanced sector of satellite
radio navigation and provides a service that will be available
for use by all. In providing enhanced coverage for the new Member
States, it will facilitate Galileo's market launch in third countries.
EGNOS will also enable the EU to facilitate the development of
safety-of-life services in the developing countries that fall
within its range.
3.6 The Communication notes several benefits from
EGNOS for Galileo: many engineers working on EGNOS are also involved
in Galileo developmental work; services offered by EGNOS are a
precursor to future Galileo applications; international co-operation
necessary for EGNOS paves the way to future international acceptance
of the Galileo system and EGNOS will provide experience in the
approval procedures, facilitating provision of Galileo services
within the planned timetable and as soon as it is deployed.
3.7 The Commission also notes cost benefits for the
Galileo programme from integration of EGNOS. EGNOS would obviate
delays for Galileo, saving €165 million (£113 million)
at 2002 prices. Integration could reduce Galileo operational
costs by between €15.1 and €21.8 million (£10.4
and £15 million) annually.
3.8 The Commission suggests, without prejudice to
the rights of the ESA and EUROCONTROL, three options for the future
management of EGNOS:
· ending
public subsidies to the EGNOS programme — but lack of sufficient
private investor interest would probably mean the end of the programme;
· complete independence
of EGNOS from Galileo — but competing systems would duplicate
the need for resources and investment;
· full integration
of EGNOS into Galileo.
The Communication then details how the third option
could be implemented under the auspices of the Galileo JU.
3.9 The document concludes with the Commission's
recommendations for EGNOS:
"the EGNOS programme should be continued and
EGNOS used both as a precursor to Galileo and as an instrument
enabling Galileo to penetrate rapidly the market for the various
satellite radio navigation [services];
"the EGNOS programme should henceforth be placed
under the control of the Galileo Joint Undertaking and the Undertaking
should be entrusted with:
the task of supervising the operation of EGNOS after
the Operational Readiness Review is completed in June 2004,
the launch as soon as possible of a call for tenders
in order to conclude a concession agreement with an economic operator
charged with operating EGNOS from June 2004;
"the management of EGNOS should be an
integral part of the future concession agreement for the management
of Galileo;
"the basic EGNOS system should receive public
funding of 33 million euros [£23 million] annually, from
2004 to 2008;
"the extension of EGNOS to other parts of the
world should be promoted to share its operation with these regions;
"the decision whether or not to continue with
operation of EGNOS after Galileo is fully deployed should be taken
by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, in liaison
with the service providers and the users once Galileo becomes
fully operational."
The Government's view
3.10 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Transport (Mr David Jamieson) tells us:
"The UK Government has consistently supported
the development of satellite navigation and positioning in Europe.
It recognises the potential benefits that this technology could
bring to transport and to the UK generally. The Government has
given both political and financial support for the development
of EGNOS and to the definition phase of Galileo. With other EU
and ESA Member States the Government has committed to fund the
development and validation phase of [the] Galileo programme and
intends to play an active and influential role during this phase.
It is disappointed that as yet there has been no resolution of
the ESA subscription issue but it is working with ESA and other
members states to ensure that an agreement is reached soon. This
impasse has delayed the setting up of the Galileo Joint Undertaking.
"The Government has been supportive of the EU
satellite navigation programme, which has been set out in previous
communications by the Commission…… the Government is
particularly supportive of the need for co-operation between Europe
and other regions on issues concerning the civil use of satellite
navigation globally."
3.11 But the Minister continues:
"Paragraph 4.5.4 of the Executive Summary of
the PwC report concludes:
'Consideration should be given to the contractual
rights and commercial agendas of those European Air Traffic Service
Providers who have contracted with ESA to provide €100m (£68.7
million) of funds for the EGNOS programme, and who have a stake
in how the procurement proceeds. In particular, the JU should
look closely at the consequences of the recommended scenario on
the bi-lateral contracts between ESA and each European Air Traffic
Service Provider. Particular attention should be paid to clauses
that deal with termination, reimbursement of funds invested, material
change, future use of EGNOS by the aviation sector, and commercial
returns.'
"Regrettably the Communication makes no reference
to these considerations and does not take into account the investment
made by the European Air Traffic Service Providers (EATSPs) in
funding, time, as well as the hosting of EGNOS infrastructure
on their premises and other involvement in influencing the direction
of the EGNOS programme and its acceptance in international organisations
such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
"Based on the findings of an earlier EU part
funded EGNOS study and following discussions with the Commission
the EATSPs which have invested in EGNOS, including UK's National
Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS), set up a European economic
interest group known as the European Satellite Services Provider
(ESSP) with the aim of operating the system. Following a request
in July 2002 by ESA for proposals for the EGNOS system operations
and service provision, ESA has been negotiating with the ESSP
to this effect.
"Although NATS and the other ESSP members welcome
the Communication as a road-map to integrating EGNOS into Galileo
these organisations have concerns about the EU's future long-term
commitment to EGNOS, their involvement in its future and their
past and future investment in it. ESSP is in discussions about
these issues with the Commission and ESA.
"The Government although welcoming the Communication
and the involvement of the JU shares the concerns of NATS and
the other members of ESSP. As the establishment of the JU has
been delayed because of the impasse in ESA, there is an urgent
need for negotiations between the Commission, ESA and the ESSP
to continue if the latter is to maintain its investment in EGNOS.
It is imperative for the future success of
both the EGNOS and Galileo programmes that acceptable solutions
are found to the legal and investment considerations [in the PwC
quotation above].. If not this will seriously jeopardise Europe's
international credibility in developing satellite navigation programmes
and the willingness of the private sector to invest in a Galileo
private public partnership. It is the objective of the UK Government
to work with all of the interested parties to ensure that these
issues are resolved and that Europe's contributions to the development
and use of civil global navigation systems are successful."
3.12 The Minister adds that his department has had
consultations with NATS and is consulting more widely on both
the Commission Communication and the PwC report.
Conclusion
3.13 Whilst we see the logic of
integrating EGNOS with the Galileo programme, we share the Minister's
concern about the apparent disregard in the Commission's Communication
for the interests and contribution of the European Air Traffic
Service Providers. Before considering the matter further we should
like to hear the outcome of the wider consultations the Minister
mentions. Meanwhile we do not clear the document.
3 See headnote. Back
4
Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 9 June 1999, cols.
1-28. Back
| 
