GLOBAL MONITORING FOR ENVIRONMENT AND
SECURITY (GMES) (14443/05)
Letter from Lord Bach, Minister for Sustainable
Farming and Food, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 19 December 2005[66]
regarding defence and security aspects of the Global Monitoring
for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative.
As you know, Defra is the policy lead on GMES,
but we have worked closely with FCO and MoD on the security aspects
of the initiative. We will continue to work closely as GMES develops.
In terms of the security aspects of GMES, our
focus is very much ensuring that these activities remain in the
civil arena and I offer more detail on this in my answers to the
questions that you raised.
The Commission has assured Defra that GMES is
intended as a civilian system for civilian purposes and under
civilian control. "A Report from the Panel of Experts on
Space and Security" (March 2005), which the Commission cites
in its GMES 2005 Communication, COM (2005) 565, provides an idea
of the type of GMES functions. These are likely to include, in
the area of security, viewing disaster areas, tracking population
movements and border movements and observing terrorists. We are
monitoring this issue closely and are drawing up a strategy to
direct GMES towards those civil functions where it can be most
useful.
The European Defence Agency has not played a
role in the development of GMES. A body under the second pillar
of the European Union will be necessary to co-ordinate GMES' role
on security issues. But the UK does not believe the EDA is appropriate
for this because it only has a military remit.
The ESDP and Space report adopted by the Council
in November 2004 does not explore the possible uses of GMES for
ESDP operations in any detail. The report simply states:
"On the civilian security side, significant
steps have been taken by the European Communities to include security
objectives in civilian space programmes, as illustrated by the
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES)."
This underlines that GMES is designed for civilian
purposes.
As outlined above, GMES is a civil system. As
with other civilian technology, the EU may draw on the information
it provides for European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) crisis
management operations. We anticipate that in some circumstances,
such as disaster relief missions, the images received from GMES
for civilian purposes may also be used by the military. MOD may
wish to make use of GMES in a similar way. The UK would oppose
the system being under military control or being tasked to serve
the military directly. No one has proposed this.
The EU Satellite Centre (SatCen) is mandated
to support the ESDP decision making process by providing analysis
of commercial satellite imagery. It has been used for activities
such as post-disaster impact assessments and monitoring illegal
crops. Currently there are no links between SatCen and GMES. The
UK is not opposed in principle to SatCen using information provided
by GMES for ESDP purposes.
At the ESA Ministerial on 5-6 December 2005,
the UK subscribed £6.23 million over three years to the ESA
GMES Space Component Programme, with contributions from Defra,
DTI and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The subscription
allows the UK to join the ESA GMES programme and influence its
development.
The first phase of the ESA GMES Space Component
Programme is funded by ESA Member States, but it is expected that
the European Commission will contribute to the funding of subsequent
phases. Commission activities on GMES have so far been funded
through the EU's Framework Programme 6 for Research and Technological
Development and it is expected that this funding will be continued
in Framework Programme 7. However, the level of this funding will
be subject to further negotiation of the Financial Perspectives
2007-13. As GMES transitions into the operational domain there
will be a need to identify appropriate Commission budgets to fund
operational activities in the long-term and the UK is working
with the Commission and other EU Member States to develop an appropriate
governance structure for GMES.
I will, of course, keep you informed of further
developments.
25 January 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Lord Bach
Thank you for your letter dated 25 January 2006
which Sub-Committee C considered at its meeting on 2 February.
The Sub-Committee was broadly satisfied with your reassurances
concerning the potential military use of GMES and has now agreed
to clear the Commission Communication from scrutiny.
However, we would like clarification on one
point. You note in your letter that "A body under the second
pillar of the European Union will be necessary to coordinate GMES'
role on security issues" but that you do not believe the
EDA to be appropriate for this role. Will this proposed body be
a new body, or will the role be given to another existing body?
If new, why is it necessary to establish a new body purely for
this one purpose? What will be the precise remit of this body,
and where will it be placed within the current Council or Commission
structures?
3 February 2006
Letter from Lord Bach to the Chairman
I am writing in response to your letter of 3
February 2006 requesting further information on which body would
be responsible for the coordination of GMES' role on security
issues.
The UK does not believe there is a need for
a new Pillar II body specifically to co-ordinate GMES' role on
security issues. The UK thinks that the existing EU Political
and Security Committee (PSC) should provide political guidance
on this. The PSC is composed of national representatives at the
ambassadorial level and deals with all aspects of the Common Foreign
and Security Policy including the European Security and Defence
Policy.
1 March 2006
66 Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session
2005-06, HL Paper 243, pp 296-297. Back
| 
