10 Space policy
| (35794)
5978/14
COM(14) 56
| Commission Report: Progress report on establishing appropriate relations between the European Union and the European Space Agency (ESA)
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | 6 February 2014
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 February 2014
|
| Department | Business, Innovation and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 20 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | 21 February 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 The European Space Agency (ESA) is an intergovernmental
organisation dedicated to the exploration of space. Established
in 1975 and headquartered in Paris, the ESA has 20 member countries
— Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom. In addition Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and
Slovenia are "European Cooperating States". Canada takes
part in some projects under a cooperation agreement. Other countries
have signed cooperation agreements with the ESA.
10.2 The ESA's space flight programme includes human
spaceflight, mainly through participation in the International
Space Station programme, the launch and operations of unmanned
exploration missions to other planets and the Moon, Earth observation,
science, telecommunication, maintaining a major spaceport, the
Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana, and designing launch vehicles.
There is close cooperation between the ESA and the EU on some
projects, such as the EU's global navigation satellite systems,
EGNOS and Galileo.[46]
10.3 The Lisbon Treaty made space policy a shared
competence between the EU and Member States (Article 4(3) TFEU).
Article 189 TFEU provides that the EU "shall establish any
appropriate relations" with the ESA.
10.4 In April 2011 the Commission published a Communication:
Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits
its citizens, in which, amongst many other issues, it made
reference to the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and asserted
the need for change in the role of the ESA and its relationship
with the EU.[47]
10.5 In November 2012 the Commission presented a
further Communication: Establishing appropriate relations between
the European Union and the European Space Agency, which set
out five 'structural obstacles' in the relationship between the
EU and the ESA which in the Commission's view, needed to be addressed,
particularly in light of the reference to the EU/ESA relationship
in Article 189 TFEU. The Communication then set out four options
for the evolution of the relationship to address these issues,
whilst noting that the ultimate goal was 'rapprochement' of the
ESA to the EU.[48]
10.6 It is clear now that the Commission takes rapprochement
to mean disbanding the ESA and creating a new agency within the
EU, operating in accordance with EU rules, with similar functions
and roles.
The document
10.7 In this progress report the Commission sets
out a preliminary assessment of the four options previously identified
(costs, benefits, institutional and legal implications) and provides
reflections on this assessment and possible next steps. It says
that the process of an open and transparent analysis of the issues
will continue and that discussions with Member States and the
Director-General of the ESA should lead to coherent and shared
conclusions between the EU, the ESA and Member States towards
the end of 2014 or early 2015 — this is later than the timescale
of the end of 2013 proposed in the 2012 Communication. The Commission
notes that the Director-General of the ESA is considering the
same options, which ensures the necessary level of coherence between
the two organisations — the Council Conclusions on the 2012
Communication stressed the need for common proposals and analysis.[49]
10.8 The Commission summarises the four options under
consideration, in some cases providing additional detail:
· Option 1 (No change) is not further elaborated;
· Option 2 (Improved cooperation under the
status quo) is now focussed on the agreement of policy
and mission objectives by the ESA and the EU based on a new EU/ESA
Framework Agreement, which would replace the current 2004 Framework
Agreement — new unspecified mechanisms would be established
to coordinate the work between the two entities;
· Option 3 (Establishing a programmatic
structure solely dedicated to the management of EU programmes
— an "EU pillar") was previously known as the
'EU chamber' model but the concept is the same — the Commission
does not provide much detail on what the EU pillar would comprise,
it could be a co-located team of officials from the ESA and the
Commission to manage EU projects such as Galileo and some discussions
have suggested that Commission staff could form part of the ESA's
management team (although this is not set out in the report);
and
· Option 4 (the ESA becomes an EU agency
while preserving some of its intergovernmental features) is not
further elaborated.
10.9 The Commission very briefly summarises its view
on the degree to which each of these four options addresses the
structural obstacles it sees with the current EU/ESA relationship.
It concludes that Option 4 is most effective in addressing the
obstacles and that Options 3 and 2 address the obstacles to a
lesser degree (Option 3 more so than Option 2). It does not set
out any consideration of factors such as the impact on EU budget
or on EU competence.
10.10 The Commission says that:
· in relation to technical aspects, Option
2 would require amendment to the 2004 ESA/EU Framework Agreement
and Option 3 would require a new EU legislative act, but complex
institutional and legal issues would need to be addressed first;
· Option 4 would require Member States to
agree to disband the ESA and then establish a new EU Agency;
· Option 4 is the least feasible option
as implementation is "heavy" and it requires a degree
of political consensus "which may be difficult to reach in
the foreseeable future";
· "there is no consensus amongst ESA
Member States" on a long-term vision for the ESA beyond 2020;
· the elements presented are not sufficient
to justify a "conclusive choice among the options";
· Option 3, however, is in the medium term
the best compromise between the expected effectiveness in dealing
with the Commission's obstacles and the ease of implementation
— there is merit in this option but further analysis and
discussion is needed;
· Option 2 should also be considered further;
· Options 2 and 3 need to be considered
in light of improvements in the working relationship between the
ESA and the EU that have been delivered to date, for example through
the working arrangements in place for the EU's Galileo programme;
· the way forward selected should bring
added value to the benefit of both the ESA and the EU and avoid
a blurring of responsibilities;
· the solution needs to be pragmatic and
avoid a 'big bang' approach but at the same time provide a solid
and sustainable basis in the long-term and achieve full compliance
with the EU's financial rules;
· the risk of disruption to programmes underway
needs to be carefully considered;
· the final proposals it makes will be accompanied
by a full impact assessment, which will detail and quantify the
impacts of "at least options 2 and 3"; and
· the progress report does not prejudge
any future proposals that the Commission may make.
The Government's view
10.11 The Minister for Universities and Science,
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr David Willetts)
notes that:
· the Commission's progress report is provided
as a basis for discussion at the Competitiveness Council on 21
February and does not contain much new information; and
· the key new elements are further detail
on some of the four options under consideration and the indication
that the Commission has recognised that there is no political
will to disband the ESA and establish a new space agency with
similar structure inside the EU.
10.12 The Minister tells us that the indication in
the report that Option 2 relies on the amendment or renegotiation
of the 2004 EU/ESA Framework Agreement is not understood and the
Government will be requesting further explanation. He says that
the Agreement was automatically renewed in 2012, after the entry
into force of the Lisbon Treaty, for a further four years and
it is not clear what needs to be changed to enable better coordination
on policy matters or specific missions.
10.13 The Minister notes that:
· Option 3 is still the least well defined
of the options and further work is needed to clarify what is proposed;
· The Commission says that this option would
require a new EU legislative act, which would set out the tasks
of the EU pillar as well as its structure and financial requirements;
and
· comparable changes to the ESA's internal
legal framework might also be necessary to create an 'EU-like'
environment.
10.14 He then comments that:
· the Government considers that implementation
of Option 3 has already begun with the ESA's navigation directorate
successfully applying EU procurement rules and EU financial regulations
for the work on the Galileo and EGNOS programmes;
· the new delegation agreements between
the Commission and the ESA for the period 2014 onwards will further
improve the working arrangements for these programmes and create
an even more 'EU-like' environment within the ESA for the management
of these programmes; and
· it is not the Government's view that an
EU legislative act is needed, but more information is needed on
what is proposed under this option.
10.15 The Minister says that:
· the Commission's acknowledgement that
the political consensus needed to deliver Option 4 would be difficult
to reach in the foreseeable future is welcome; and
· the Government has made clear throughout
this process that the interests of Europe's space sector are best
served by the ESA remaining an independent intergovernmental organisation.
10.16 Turning to the question of next steps, the
Minister comments that:
· the Government considers that there are
in fact two issues under discussion as part of this debate;
· the first relates to how the ESA can deliver
EU funded programmes such as Galileo efficiently, to cost and
on-time;
· the second issue is more strategic than
operational and relates to who should do what in Europe in the
field of space;
· improving delivery of EU-funded programmes
is the objective of Option 3, although the Government does not
yet see a need for any new EU legislation to deliver this;
· it would like to understand in the next
stage of the analysis why administrative arrangements such as
the delegation agreements for the Galileo programme and changes
to the ESA's internal rules are considered by the Commission to
be insufficient to deliver Option 3;
· resolving the respective roles and responsibilities
of the ESA and the EU in the field of space, which is the objective
of Option 2, could include establishing a road-map for research
and development or leading the discussions to establish a European
space policy which could be used by Member States, the ESA and
the Commission to align space activities;
· at present, both the ESA (through its
founding convention), the EU (through the Lisbon Treaty) and both
organisations acting together (through the 2004 Framework Agreement)
are all charged with the development of a European Space Policy;
and
· the Government therefore supports the
Commission's proposal to undertake further work on Options 2 and
3 in close collaboration with the ESA, but it does not agree with
all aspects of these options as set out in the progress report.
10.17 Finally the Minister tells us that the Government
supports the Commission's statement that the way forward selected
should bring added value for both organisations and the recognition
that high-level objectives such as the competitiveness of the
European space industry need to be considered throughout.
Conclusion
10.18 Whilst clearing this document, we draw it
to the attention of the House as indication of the issues that
may require close scrutiny if the Commission makes, as it suggests
is possible, specific proposals in the future.
46 For the ESA see http://www.esa.int/ESA. Back
47
(32660) 8693/11 + ADDs 1-6: see HC 428-xxvi (2010-12), chapter
1 (11 May 2011) and Gen Co Debs, European Committee C,
23 May 2011, cols. 3-14. Back
48
(34417) 16374/12: see HC 86-xxvi (2012-13), chapter 1 (9 January
2013) and Gen Co Debs, European Committee C, 11 February
2013, cols 3-18. Back
49
For the conclusions see http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%206571%202013%20INIT. Back
| 
