Examination of Witnesses (Questions 523-
539)
MONDAY 19 MARCH 2007
JEAN-JACQUES
DORDAIN AND
PROFESSOR DAVID
SOUTHWOOD
Q523 Chairman: Could I welcome particularly
to this oral evidence session of the science and technology committee's
investigation into space policy the director general of the European
Space Agency, Jean-Jacques Dordain, and can I welcome too David
Southwood, the director of science at ESA. Director General, currently
there are 17 Member States that are involved in the ESA club.
What happens when every one of the states in the enlarged Europe
wants to be a member?
Mr Dordain: I am convinced that
in five years from now there will be between 22 and 25 Member
States. We already have two countries officially requesting to
become a member of ESA, Hungary and the Czech Republic and there
are more to come. I am taking the enlargement of ESA as a fact.
I am taking that as recognition of the importance of space for
European countries and as a threat to ESA in its operation. We
have proposed to the current Member States a change to some of
the operations of ESA, starting with the decision making process.
I think there were 11 Member States when the Convention of ESA
was created. We went from 11 to 17 without changing anything in
the operation of ESA.
Q524 Chairman: What do you expect
to change? What is your vision for that?
Mr Dordain: There are two major
points. Certainly the most important one is the decision making
process because at ESA. We have several areas where decisions
must be made by unanimity. Unanimity at 17 is more difficult than
unanimity at 11 and I am sure that unanimity at 22 will be even
more difficult. What I wish is not to decrease the efficiency
of ESA because it is a very important European organisation making
products. What I wish is to decrease the number of decisions by
unanimity. Secondly, there is no weighting factor in the decision
making process at ESA meaning that it is one country, one vote.
When you take today the situation of ESA in terms of budget, three
contributing states already represent today two-thirds of the
budget. 14 Member States represent only one third. When we are
22, with all respect to the new members to come, I am sure they
will not bring a lot of budget, meaning that when we are 22 three
or four Member States will still represent two-thirds of the budget
and almost 20 will represent only one-third. What I wish is to
keep the big contributors because what I would like to avoid is
becoming the agency of the small contributors, with the French,
the Germans and the Italians, who are the biggest contributors
to space in Europe, playing in their field and leaving the small
contributors in ESA.
Q525 Chairman: Does that mean you
will be looking for majority votes on the programmes?
Mr Dordain: What I would like
to do is to introduce some weighting factors for decisions concerning
budgets and procurement. Today the budgets are voted by a two-thirds
majority, meaning that two-thirds of the small contributors can
overrule the biggest contributors which, in my view, is not the
best way to keep the motivation of the big contributors. What
I would like is to introduce what we call a double, two-thirds
majority for the budget which is two-thirds of the Member States
but also two-thirds of the budget. I consider that we are just
starting to work on what could be a much better decision making
process but clearly we have to change.
Q526 Dr Iddon: You mentioned one
of the new countries, the Czech Republic. Do you see any of these
new countries building up a sufficient budget input to become
major players in the future?
Mr Dordain: We have the experience
of new Member States at ESA. We have just welcomed Greece and
Luxembourg two years ago. There is always a period during which
these new countries are contributing only to the mandatory programmes.
For contributing to the mandatory programmes the rule is very
clear. They contribute according to their GNP so they have no
choice but to give their GNP proportion to the mandatory programmes.
It is only step by step that they could be interested in contributing
to optional programmes because obviously to be happy being a Member
State of ESA you must have the scientific communities and have
the industrial capabilities that make you a happy Member State.
My goal is to make all Member States happy.
Q527 Chairman: Would this not lead
possibly to a country with a very small GDP, by becoming a member,
paying very little in terms of its mandatory contribution but,
in terms of the optional programmes, making a significant contribution
into an optional programme and therefore buying under juste
retour a very large element? Is that possible?
Mr Dordain: It is possible but
it does not happen because if you wish to have an industrial return
by contributing to optional programmes you must already have a
lot of industrial capabilities. All these new Member States when
they arrive as ESA members do not have the industrial capabilities
to justify a contribution to optional programmes. This is the
reason why they start by contributing to the mandatory programmes
and then, step by step, they move to optional programmes. Maybe
the only exception is Luxembourg because it has a very small GDP
because the population is small—not because they are poor
but because they are few. They have very big industrial companies
with SES Global, the telecom operator. Luxembourg is contributing
to the optional programmes in telecommunications because of the
presence of SES Global.
Q528 Chairman: In terms of the role
that the UK will play in these discussions to frame the new organisational
framework, how significant will the UK's part be in framing the
new regulations?
Mr Dordain: I am expecting a lot
from the UK. When I met the previous minister, Lord Sainsbury—and
I have a plan to meet the new minister—Lord Sainsbury was
even going to a point where he was telling me that changing the
decision making process should be a condition for enlargement,
meaning no enlargement before changing the decision making process.
Q529 Chairman: Do you support that
view?
Mr Dordain: I think it will be
difficult to put that on a purely political standpoint because
it is always going to be difficult to say that we have accepted
up to the 17th Member State and from the 18th this is forbidden.
I am not a politician but, in my view, it would be very difficult
to sustain that in purely political terms. I prefer to say, "Okay,
let's change. Instead of making conditions, let us put all new
thoughts into change". I am spending a lot of my energy on
that. What I wish is the full support of the UK in helping me
to change the decision making process. Unfortunately, the change
of the decision making process will be decided by unanimity. We
can make it as early as next year. I wish to do that next year
before new Member States arrive.
Q530 Chairman: Could I ask you whether
you feel that the UK is an enthusiastic member of ESA? Nobody
else is listening, so you can be blunt.
Mr Dordain: I am always open.
Q531 Chairman: You are not a politician.
Mr Dordain: No, but I like ESA
and I think ESA is very important for Europe and all the Member
States. The UK is a very enthusiastic supporter of our activities
on some selected topics, not on all space activities. You know
that. The UK has always been a strong supporter of science except
in the mid-1990s when the UK was driving the decrease of the science
programme. In 2005 it was the UK pushing for at least stopping
the decrease of the science programme. The UK is a very important
actor in science and, because of your GDP, you are contributor
number two to the science programme. There is UK support in the
telecommunications area and in the earth science field. I would
like much more UK support in the applications of earth observation,
for global monitoring and environmental security. Environmental
security is a very important topic. The UK is not at its place
there when I compare the capabilities of the UK. On average, the
UK is an anomaly in ESA because the UK is number two in terms
of the GDP and is only number five or even maybe number six in
terms of contributions to ESA activities. When I compare the different
countries, the UK is not on average at this position, at least
in terms of budget. That is a question of choice for the British
government.
Q532 Adam Afriyie: I would like to
examine the role of the UK's position within the ESA a little
further. You said that the United Kingdom was enthusiastic on
selected topics. In the break-out sessions and during the meetings
that you have, what would you say is the UK's reputation? When
other members are talking about the UK and you look at the UK,
what is our reputation?
Mr Dordain: The UK is a friend
of ESA. There is no feeling whatsoever among the other Member
States to take the UK as reluctant. That is number one. Number
two, the UK has a very specific position. Sometimes the UK is
reluctant in the way they look at space. For example, the UK is
not present in launchers or in manned space flights, which makes
the UK a very specific Member State with 14 Member States contributing
to launchers and 12 or 13 Member States contributing to manned
space flights. On some topics the UK is all right. The UK is bringing
leadership in terms of value for money and economic return. ESA
could not exist without the UK because of what I said and also
because of what British industry is bringing to ESA. Without British
industry, we would not have Giove A in orbit and we would not
have kept the frequency allocation that we need for Galileo. What
I wish is to have more UK in ESA.
Q533 Adam Afriyie: To what extent
does the UK play a leadership role? Obviously there are certain
selected projects in which we are involved but in a more general
sense to what extent does the UK take a leadership role in ESA?
Mr Dordain: The UK is one of the
two leaders in space science which is the science of the universe
and one of the leaders in earth science because science is not
only the science of the universe; it is also science of the earth.
There is a connection between space science and earth science.
Q534 Adam Afriyie: I wonder whether
David could give a couple of examples of where we are taking a
leadership role in the science itself?
Professor Southwood: In my programme,
the UK leadership role is just about everything. The programmes
tend to reflect the UK interest partly because the UK has such
a strong space science community. If you want me to prioritise,
I would say the UK in space astronomy has always been extremely
strong. The big change is in the last five or six years in planetary
exploration where, for a very long time—although I am not
a planetary scientist myself—it was the exception rather
than the rule. The way that the UK has picked up on the exploration
initiative, on pushing forward its views as to what exploration
should be, is a very definite leadership role but it is relatively
new in the last five or six years.
Mr Dordain: David has spoken of
space science but I would like to come back to earth science because
there the UK has taken a leading role. Three weeks ago we celebrated
five years of operation of Envisat, which is the biggest satellite
ever built in the world for the environment. One of the major
instruments of Envisat is the advanced radar which is made in
the UK. There is a leading role for the UK in earth science. We
all know much more about the earth, the environment and so on.
This is the reason why I am disappointed today by the role of
the UK in terms of applications of that science. The services
and applications of GMES are all coming from scientific progress.
It is always disappointing to have one country leading the scientific
part and not being present in the applications part, because this
would be much more consistent.
Q535 Adam Afriyie: You have already
said that the UK is unusual. I guess you are referring to the
fact that we have a voluntary partnership of 11 government departments
and research councils. Is that a unique position among the 17
members of ESA?
Mr Dordain: You are speaking of
how BNSC is working in the UK?
Q536 Adam Afriyie: Yes.
Mr Dordain: BNSC is the image
of your political position. It is not the agency which drives
the policy; it is the policy which drives the agency or whatever
organisation. I have never in my life seen an agency replacing
a lack of political willingness. Any country is building the agency
that they need consistently with their policy. You cannot compare,
for example, with the fact that there is an agency in France because
the French policy is very different from the British policy. The
agency is more a result of the political willingness than the
other way round. BNSC today is consistent with the policy that
the British government has. This is more user driven, so you have
to collect the user requirements and so on. In my view, it works.
Q537 Adam Afriyie: Can you see any
way in which the BNSC could be improved? You seem to be saying
we are doing well. Is there some way that the BNSC could be improved
to make matters better?
Mr Dordain: I think BNSC works
well according to the policy of the British government. One of
the major problems that I have not only in the UK but in most
of my Member States and even more at European level, is that we
are always starting with the how rather than the what. BNSC is
more the result of policy than the other way round. You should
first define what you want to do and then shape the agency that
you need according to what you want to do. BNSC works well in
accordance with what you want to do.
Q538 Adam Afriyie: Does BNSC's user
driven approach where the 11 departments and various bodies say,
"This is our priority" conflict or create tensions within
ESA in terms of the way that the UK is approaching the work that
is done?
Mr Dordain: I do not think so
because the programmes where the UK is contributing at ESA are
user driven. You are contributing to science and science is a
typical user driven programme. It is not the director general
or the director of science who decides which mission we should
do. It is the scientists. This is true for space science and earth
science. GMES, also, is a typical user driven programme. Galileo
is a user driven programme. Even telecommunications is a user
driven programme, even if the user is industry. Your approach
is consistent with the approach of the other agencies, on those
user-driven programmes. The difference is that some programmes
are not user driven: launchers, access to space, manned space
flight, meaning that, for example, the French agency are dealing
with user driven programmes and non-user driven programmes. BNSC
for the time being does not need that because you are not involved
in these programmes.
Q539 Adam Afriyie: We should be going
round enthusiastically evangelising about the BNSC to other ESA
members, I assume. You also said that the UK's level of investment
in ESA is an anomaly. Why did you use that word?
Mr Dordain: Compared to GNP. As
usual, we are all comparing the investment in space according
to GNP. We always say Europe is investing seven times less than
the United States while the GNP of Europe is larger than the GNP
of the United States. This is a political willingness because
the budget is only a result of political willingness. Within Europe,
France and Belgium are investing two times their GNP, if I am
normalising everything to the GNP. Germany and Italy are investing
their GNP and the UK half of their GNP on average. It does not
mean half your GNP everywhere. This is the reason why—I
am sorry—I have called that an anomaly.
| 
