Esdp and space document circulated at 15 ms and presented at eumc on 12 march 2003
1. ESDP AND SPACE1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Hellenic Presidency’s initiative “ESDP and Space” which was presented in Military
Committee (25/9/02), claimed that information from space minimizes uncertainty and
increases the chances for prudent political decisions and that space assets constitute an
essential segment of the military capabilities needed.
2. The aim of the Greek initiative was to provide a background for the initial
formulation of a Space Concept in the ESDP framework. The initiative attempted a survey of
the whole range of ESDP space-related missions, such as Command, Control
Communications and Information (C3I), Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and
Reconnaissance (ISTAR), Early Warning, Signal Intelligence, Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing, Weather, Oceanography and Mapping, Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) and
Space Surveillance.
3. As the way ahead, the Greek initiative commented that since the process of
reshaping the existing EU Space Policy in order to take into account all the strategic
interests involved in space activities has started, the formulation of a conceptual ESDP
Space Policy has been envisaged. The Greek food for thought paper informed the Military
Committee that First pillar (Commission) together with ESA, following a Parliament’s
request, would start an inter-linked initiative concerning the development of an overall
European Space Policy, which should embrace all aspects of European Policies. The final
outcome, to be submitted to the EU Council and Parliament, is expected by the end of 2003
4. For this initiative written comments were requested. Only 6 member states
contributed to the debate (see Appendix “A”) and the key points in their comments, were the
following:
a. Some delegations stated that there was a need for a comprehensive inventory
of all assets and that a "first stocktaking" could prove very useful. Also the conclusions of
work of ECAP panels related to the relevant Space elements/shortfalls will have to be taken
into account.
b. Some delegations wondered about the selected "bottom up" approach to work
out a space concept of the EU within the framework of the ESDP. They shared the view that
a reflexion on the character undoubtedly " trans-pillars " must be undertaken very upstream;
and that dual character must be taken into account. In this context, it would be very helpful
to find out in detail what is being developed in this field in another bodies of the European
Union, since space technology could be of as much importance to civil crisis management
as to military crisis management.
c. The structures charged to express the various needs for the EU within the
second pillar is advisable to be determined. Also the co-operation and interaction between
EUMC and those fora or bodies in EU and European Space Agency, who deal with space
matters, must be examined.
1
Paper circulated at 15 by the EU Hellenic Presidency and presented at the EU Military Committee (EUMC) on
12 March 2003. Author, Dr. Alexander Kolovos (LtCol, HAF), Head of Hellenic National Centre for Space
Applications.
1
2. 5. Recently (Jan. 21st, 2003), Commission adopted Green paper on European Space
Policy, to stimulate debate over political sensitive issues including space-based security and
the needed institutional arrangements. For CFSP/ESDP aspects Green Paper raises the
following question: “How better to define and clarify, as part of a coherent whole (including
framework and time-scale): the nature and scale of the space capacities required to achieve
the political objectives of the PESC? Within what context the possible new space capability
may be placed at the service of the security of citizens?”.
II. Aim
6. The aim of the current document is twofold. Firstly, it should answer to the
various comments by reviewing the European space effort in an overall context.
Secondly, having in mind the request from First pillar, it is intended to raise the
awareness of the need for a coherent approach to space and to map out a way
forward to develop such approach for Second Pillar.
III. Presidency’s Fact Findings
7. The divergence of the above-mentioned views, the difference on the
approach (top down versus bottom up), the reminder that space is a cross-sectorial
strategic asset and policy instrument, the request to examine the current situation in
a European level, plus the recent First pillar initiative, prompted the Presidency to
consider space as a whole, including the activities that has been undertaken at
European level (systems, policy and institutional issues). The Presidency would like
to present some of its findings in order to bring appropriate answers to the above-
mentioned comments. To this end, the big picture of European space activities is
listed below along with a certain number of explanations:
a. EU Space Activities.
8. Since space technologies and space-based systems are quite generally of
multi-use nature and thereby capable of supporting various policies simultaneously,
European Union has been taking an increasing interest in space, which can be
explained by the many uses it can serve in EU policies (agriculture, urban planning,
transport, the environment, etc).
(1) First Pillar. Until now the responsibility of developing a European space
strategy and relevant programmes lied in the competency of the first pillar (European
Commission) and of European Space Agency,2 an entity that exists outside of the EU
framework and is civilian in character.3 ESA has make a huge amount of productive
work over many years and it seems that intends to share the EU's growing interest in
ESDP.4
(a) Institutional Aspects. Until recently, the DG/Research and the
Commission’s Space Co-ordination Group with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) managed
the EC activity in space.5 Considering the central role of the ESA in Europe's common effort
2
Council resolution on a European space strategy, see item 1.2.75 in the Bulletin of the European Union, No.12-
1999.
3
ESA is an European intergovernmental organisation. It involves 13 of EU Member states as well as Switzerland
and Norway. Greece and Luxembourg do not participate in ESA. Created in 1975 by virtue of a convention which
defines its purpose as "to provide for and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among
European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view to their being used for
scientific purposes and for operational space applications systems". It is therefore natural for ESA to be involved
in the definition of a European space strategy even though, it is not part of the European Union.
4
"ESA increases communications budget", Space News, 22 January 2001.
5
Joint Research Centre consists of eight institutes divided into a number of units. Part of its job is to provide
Europe's policy-makers, scientists and citizens with information about space-based applications. Its mission is to
2
3. in the development of space activities, it has been decided that a synergy with ESA was
needed. In this context, Commission and the ESA should seek to arrive at an efficient
framework for cooperation (Framework Agreement to be signed in 2003) whereby the ESA
acts as the implementing agency for the development and procurement of the space
segment and ground segment involved in the European Community's initiatives. Along these
lines, a joint high-level Task Force (JTF) on Space Policy, has been set up between the
Commission and the ESA-Executive (2001). Also a Joint Space Strategy Advisory Group
has been set up (JSSAG). JTF developed further the European space strategy, taking also
into account the developments regarding the ESDP,6 and produced proposals for its
implementation. The JTF has recommended the joint development and implementation of a
coherent overall European Space Policy, which takes into account the needs of the EU,
incorporating the space policies of ESA and of the Member States of the EU and ESA while
also prolonging the mandate for the JTF and JSSAG until the conclusion of the Framework
agreement. The agreement could include the definition of a permanent structure as follow-
on to the Joint Task Force, instrumental in the shaping of the European Space Policy.
(b) Space Policy. In December 1999, the European Council decided to
call the European Commission and the Executive of the European Space Agency (ESA)
to prepare a draft for a European Strategy for Space.7,8 As a result, a joint Commission –
ESA document on a European strategy for space was produced9, which according to EC
should open a new chapter in Europe’s approach to space, becoming the reference for
European space activities.
In this strategy EC acknowledged for the first time that space
presents a security dimension, which has thus far only been dealt with, at european
level, in the context of the WEU and that the development of a common ESDP is
prompting the EU to take space capabilities into account, for instance in decision-
making for the planning and monitoring of the Petersberg Tasks. To meet the ESDP
objectives, the EU should be able to call on a range of military (initially established by
the WEU) and civil (established by the EU) means for intelligence gathering and
crisis management.
The Council in its resolution of 16 November 2000 expressed its
agreement in this document.10 The European Parliament, in its resolution of 18 May
2000 requested for a debate to take place between the parties involved in the scientific,
technical, industrial, commercial and political sectors, together with the national
agencies. After two years of debate11, the European Parliament in its Resolution on
space12 invited the Commission to prepare a document on the future of Europe in Space
and to further evolve and strengthen the European Space Policy (beyond actions
already included in the Commission/ESA Joint Task Force mandate).
provide, as and when required, specific information derived from space-based earth observation facilities in
combination with data supplied by navigation and telecommunications satellites.
6
Council Resolution of 16 November 2000 on a European space strategy. Official Journal C 371 , 23/12/2000 p.
0002 – 0003.
7
Resolution ESA Council at Ministerial level, Brussels, 11 and 12 May 1999.
8
2112th EU Council meeting – Research (Brussels, 2 December 1999).
9
COM(2000) 597 final Brussels, 27.9.2000.
10
The EC-ESA document proposed that the European Space Strategy should be developed along the following three
components identified: First, strengthening the foundations of space activities; second enhancing scientific knowledge
and third, reaping the benefits for markets and society. CFSP is embedded in the third component of this Space
Strategy under the full title "reaping the benefits for markets and society through a demand-driven exploitation of the
technical capabilities of the space community", and is associated exclusively with the thematic area of global
observation. The Communication states that thus far, space activities in Europe have been largely focused on the first
two objectives, although the capabilities exist to meet all three, which are, overall, inseparable.
11
‘Europe and Space: Turning to a new chapter’ (COM(2000) 597 – 2001/2072(COS)), 28 September 2000,
12
Parliament Resolution, 17 January 2002, PR TAPROV(2002)0015 «Europe and Space».
3
4. To this end, EC initialized the Green Paper on European Space
Policy process, which should embrace all aspects of European policies, including those
of the CFSP-ESDP aspects.13 The Green Paper puts forward a number of politically
sensitive questions, which Europe will have to face in the medium and long term (such
as the Security and Defense Dimension of a Space Policy, space needs for the CFSP,
dual use of space systems, institutional matters as the role of ESA, the shrinking of
commercial space activities in the last 2 years etc). The official consultation period will
extend until 30 May 2003 and. The contribution of space assets to the CFSP and ESDP,
is mentioned in chapter 2.3, under the title “Improving the Security of Citizens”14.
Subsequently, an action plan ("White Paper") will be drawn up by the Commission,
detailing the action to be undertaken and the role of each partner in ensuring that they
are successfully implemented. This plan will be presented before the end of 2003.
( c ) Space Programme. An EU space programme is already taking place and is
developed jointly by Commission & ESA. GALILEO and GMES initiatives, respectively in the
field of navigation by satellite and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, are
mainly focused on the competency of transport, environment and research. Until now, this
EU Programme has not taken officially into account the developments regarding the ESDP:
The security component of the GMES initiative does not include military
matters, since the “S” in GMES covers the security and protection of citizens related to
environmental threats. According to EC, the security and dual use dimensions of GMES has
not been adequately investigated so far and the issue of crisis management and its bearing
on an EU capacity for GMES will need to be considered at the appropriate time in the
appropriate setting. 15 The GMES concept and implementation plan will be further elaborated
(it may address the question of the built-up of a European dual-use structure with regard to
the analysis, distribution and services based on the GMES satellite data) and proposed to
EU Council and European Parliament by the end of 2003.16 JTF recommended the
establishment of an appropriate dialogue on security and dual use issues between the
Directorates-General of the Commission, the Secretary General of the Council of the
EU/High Representative for CFSP, ESA and relevant authorities in Member States and the
determination on the future role of ESA with respect to these issues.17
The GALILEO radionavigation system is a civil programme under civil
control;18 although one of the initial arguments for the development of it was that there are
serious problems of both sovereignty and security if Europe’s safety critical navigation
systems are out of Europe’s control.19 On the other hand it should be noted that on the
political dimension JTF recommends to address security aspects in a timely manner and
establish the appropriate security mechanism across all phases of the programme. Also JTF
calls for the establishment of an appropriate dialogue on security and dual use issues
between the Directorates-General of the Commission, the Secretary General of the Council
of the EU/High Representative for CFSP, ESA and relevant authorities in Member States,
13
GREEN PAPER, European Space Policy, COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels,
COM(2003) 17/5, 20 January 2003.
14
The question that is raised is how better to define and clarify, as part of a coherent whole (including framework
and time-scale): the nature and scale of the space capacities required to achieve the political objectives of the
PESC?.
15
Communication from the Commission to the Council and The European Parliament. Global Monitoring for
Environment and Security (GMES) Outline. GMES EC Action Plan (Initial Period: 2001 – 2003) COM(2001) 609
final Brussels, 23.10.2001.p.3.
16
“The European Space Policy and its Security Aspects”, Draft keynote address of Mr. Achilleas Mitsos, Director-
General of DG Research, European Satellites for Security, Bruxelles 18-19 June, 2002.
17
‘Towards a European Space Policy’, The European Commission and the European Space Agency
Joint Task Force Report, COM(2001) 718 final, 07.12.2001, p. 16.
18
Transport Council Resolution on GALILEO, 5 April 2001.
19
COM(1999) 54 Final/European Commission/ 10 February 1999.
4
6. ECAP Panel CM-PGM, european efforts could in order of priority look for aircraft
capability of tactical situation updating via satellite links.
Apart from the strategic IMINT requirements and
capabilities which are presented as annex “b” to the final report of the relevant ECAP
Panel, no other specific operational requirements have been defined.
b. National, Bilateral and Multinational Space Efforts:
(1) Institutional and Space Policy aspects. Most European
countries have formulated national space policies and set up Space Agencies.
(2) Space Programmes. The European space endeavour is based on
a series of different choices and national-multinational programmes rather than on
any European policy as such:
(a) Various programmes have been developed on a national
basis since ‘60s, for both civilian and security purposes, mainly in the fields of earth
observation and communications. The last two years has seen commitment by
Member States to a series of defence and security programmes (sometimes with
bilateral or multilateral cooperation).25 A detailed reference to them is attached as
Appendix B. In summary these programmes are26:
France: Helios second generation observation, € 2Bn plus;
Syracuse 3 communications, €2Bn plus; Pleiades observation (shared with Italy), €500
million; ESSAIM ELINT, €500 million.
United Kingdom: Skynet 5 communications satellite system,
€2Bn plus;
Italy: COSMO/Skymed (civil/military observation, shared with
France), €800 million, Sicral 1B, €150 million.
Spain: SPAINSAT, €300 million for communications; joint
programme with a US company.
Germany: SAR Lupe radar observation; €500 million
(b) Some Member states, in order to push forward the development of
an European global system of earth observation, decided that it was essential to define and
evaluate the common needs. This is the main objective of the document called BOC, from
the French Besoins Opérationnels Communs (BOC),27 since this document focuses upon
the common operational requirements for a global observation system. This document is
attached as annex “c” in the final Report of the strategic IMINT collection ECAP panel, with
the title “Common Operational Requirements for a European global satellite observation
system (for security and defense purposes)”. At the beginning, it is envisaged that the
building of this European system is based upon exchanges amongst national systems
through users ground segments. EU could get an access to the information provided by this
system. Concerning the generation after 2010/2012, it should be based upon a common
global European procurement policy. Five European Chiefs of Staff (of France, Germany,
25
On the other hand it should be noted that European countries have so far been unable to reach agreement on a
joint military satellite communications system. (see Eumilsatcom, then Trimilsatcom and last Bimilsatcom
initiatives).
26
The Future of Europe in Space, High Level Space Policy Workshop, Elements for Discussion, Brussels
3rd October 2002.
27
Common Operational Requirements for a European Global Satellite Observation System (for security and
defence purposes) signed by France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium.
6
7. Italy Spain and Belgium) have signed the BOC document while his signature could be
extended to other partners. To some extent, the BOC could be considered as the military
counterpart of the GMES, the global monitoring system to protect and manage the
environment. According to the Green paper, this first step could be complemented by the
GMES initiative in order to produce a European observation system in space, subsequently
extended to information and reconnaissance.
IV. Description of Different Options for an Overall Second Pillar Response
9. Integrating space policy into Union competence poses a number of complex
and sensitive questions.28 After all, one of the most important recommendations of
Joint Task Force concerned the establishment of a regular dialogue on security
issues between the SG/HR of the CFSP, the European Commission, ESA and
Member States. It is therefore against this background that the present Green paper
process and the Greek initiative should be seen as a step towards the establishment
of such a dialogue, because, according to DG/Research, the defense and security
aspects of space until now has not received the attention it merits. 29 It is obvious
from the facts presented above that an active debate about the security aspects of
space systems, the policy and the institutional issues has started.
10. The answer to the question raised by Green paper (see. para. 5), requires a
formulation of a Space Policy for second pillar. Second pillar has a choice. Either
contribute to it or maintain the current situation.
a. In the first case, second pillar has already been involved in the ongoing
discussions as it is proved by the involvement of the EU High Representative in the
European Advisory Group on Aerospace which was set up in 2001 to analyze the
adequacy of the existing political and regulatory framework for aerospace in Europe,
to highlight deficiencies and to make proposals for further improvement. Their
findings are presented in a report entitled Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st
Century (STAR 21), which the Group presented to the President of the European
Commission, on 16 July 2002. In this report, this Group made specific
recommendations regarding safeguarding Europe’s role in space.
b. In the second case, Commission and ESA will proceed alone and
Second Pillar will not have the opportunity to present its position, about aspects that
clearly lie in his competence. Greek Presidency believes that it is logical to contribute
to the dialogue and presents below some of the options second pillar has in the
areas of space policy and space programme in the CFSP-ESDP framework, and in
the institutional aspects.
a. Policy
(1). The EU is a multi-pillar organisation in which the military tool is only one
instrument available for crisis management. As first pillar admitted that the
CFSP/ESDP space dimension was only partially addressed so far, due to current
existing institutional limitations,30 there is a place for this space policy for
28
Commission Launches Debate On A Space Policy For The Eu, Ip/03/, Brussels, 21 January 2003.
29
‘Green Paper’ on the future of Europe in Space, Workshop on Security Aspects Brussels 15 th November 2002,
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, D(2002) CB
30
‘Towards a European Space Policy’, The European Commission and the European Space Agency
Joint Task Force Report, COM(2001) 718 final, 07.12.2001, p. 23.
7
8. CFSP/ESDP within an overall EU Space Policy. Thus Presidency proposes the
drafting of a Space policy in the CFSP-ESDP framework. This policy can be drafted
further with the help of EUMS until the end of May 2003, date for which EC sets as
the end of the debate for the Green paper.
(2). So far, both representatives of the HR and of EUMS have attended workshops
(EC, Luven) and panels related with space policy, technology and applications. The
Intelligence Directorate of the EUMS and the Staff of the EU Council attended as observers
of the Strategic IMINT Panel. Also in the preparation of the Green paper process both
attended a working meeting to consider issue relates to the security aspect (November 15,
2002).
(3) Since most of European countries have already a national Military Space
Policy, this process can also be augmented by the method used with success initially
in the elaboration of the headline goal, in particular the involvement of Member State
experts through expert groups, with the EUMS assisting. Also, according to the
comments made by the Spanish Director General For Defence Policy, during a
meeting in Athens (12 November 2002), for this endeavour the assistance of the EUSC’s
experience could be well appreciated.
(4) First pillar believes that this European Space Policy, including security and defence
aspects, has to be presented at the highest level for political endorsement. It is only Heads
of State and Governments, meeting at their European Councils, who can consider the
European Space Policy in full.31 To this end, this space policy in the CFSP-ESDP framework
can be presented to PSC.
b. Institutional issues.
(1) The development of such a coherent space policy involves institutional questions,
which initially relate to the different competencies of the Union's main institutions with regard
to the first and second pillar of the current EU Treaty. More specifically Green Paper
mentions that such a policy should cover all civilian, security and defence aspects and calls
for a review of the decisional architecture in relative matters. For the Second Pillar moving
into this new area of activity requires a formal structure.
(2) Several institutions in Europe are developing ideas for new systems and
services. However, there is no overall planning within which the various potential services
can find their specific role at a European level. At the same time, those organizations with
some responsibility to supply information services to the policy maker need to be fully
engaged in the process of defining what will be necessary.
(3) Looking at the US paradigm, US have one coherent space policy, leading to a
clear share of responsibilities among two major public actors, which manage the most of
for science, advanced and risky technologies, and manned
programmes; and DoD for end-to-end navigation, telecommunications, and Earth
observation systems, and for operational expendable launchers.32
(4) The big challenge will therefore be to identify and to elaborate an overall EU Space
security architecture. This architecture would be based either on existing or on newly
created structures, assets and procedures. A Commission document33 states that the
31
Ibid, p. 23.
32
‘The European Space Sector In The World’, from http://ravel.esrin.esa.it/docs/annex1_wisemen.pdf
33
‘Europe and Space: Turning to a new chapter’ (COM(2000) 597 – 2001/2072(COS)), 28 September 2000.
8
10. would be answerable to the Political and Security Committee and responsible for
coordinating those aspects of European security and defence that concern the use of
space.37
(d). EU Space Agency. Last, there is a proposal for the creation of a EU
space agency in charge of space systems for security and defence purposes. This
agency could collect the necessary funds, ensure technical analysis and program
management, in the same way as ESA works for scientific programs.38
c. Space Programme in the ESDP framework.
(1) The Gulf crisis provided a graphic illustration of the use of satellites, both civil
and military, in crisis-management and the conduct of military operations. Intensive
use of this medium contributed greatly to the success of the coalition. Satellite
systems covered a wide spread of tasks: observation, monitoring, communications,
navigation and meteorology.
(2) On the other hand, there are no EU military programmes, at all. Public European
space expenditure is divided into civil and military activities and of the ESA member
states, only few fund military space activities. France and the United Kingdom possess
substantial military space budgets, while Italy, Spain and Germany follow. These
countries are engaged in national or multinational related programmes outside the
framework of either ESA or the EU. Since there are not enough resources to fulfill all EU
requirements with expensive dedicated military systems in an environment of increasing
global responsibilities, some of them might be of special interest to EU. But in what
space-related areas should this EU military programme emerge?
(a) Areas of Applications. STAR 21 Report recommends the development of a
fully European-based space defence and security capability for domains such as
surveillance, reconnaissance, and command/control including telecommunications and
positioning.39 According to the identified shortfalls other areas of operational interest
involves SIGINT capability and Early warning satellites. This paper will examine further
the prospects in each one of these space domains.
Imagery Satellites. Until now, the domain of IMINT collection from
satellites has gained more attention than the other space areas. The field of a European
space-based observation system has been examined both in the studies carried out by
the WEU Space Group on the development of such a system and the possibility of
WEU’s participation at a multilateral European level; and recently by the relevant ECAP
panel. This is well understood since in the context of the ESDP a proven space ISTAR
capability is of crucial importance. ISTAR assets, with the exception of EUMS Int Div and
the EUSC, are all assets belonging to Member States. Member States are therefore
responsible for making available ISTAR product for EU crisis management and ISTAR
assets and systems in a deployment phase and during EU-led crisis management
operations. A failure to do so would leave EU decision makers, both political and military,
lacking in the essential elements required to formulate options and to make sound
37
A joint European space strategy: security and defence aspects, WEU Assembly, DOCUMENT A/1738, 20 June
2001.
38
‘Building a common space defence in Europe’, BG Gavoty, ETAT-MAJOR DES ARMEES - BUREAU
ESPACE, European Satellites for Security, Bruxelles 18-19 June, 2002.
39
The EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, along with five European
Commissioners, were involved in this report.
10
11. decisions for EU crisis management and for EU led-crisis management operations. The
relevant ECAP panel that dealt with strategic IMINT recommended the following phased
approach to closing the shortfall. In the short term (by 2005): a combination of improved
national intelligence support, improved access to commercial satellite imagery sources
and negotiated access to existing military systems. In the medium term (2005-2007): in
addition to the above, negotiated access to emerging military and dual use systems. In
the longer term (2010-2015): continued access to the next generation of capability,
potentially through the development of a common EU satellite imaging system.40 Also
this panel identified requirements and capabilities that can be examined against existing
or planned systems and then ascertain whether existing systems are able to meet that
requirements or whether new systems are necessary.
Communications. But earth observation covers only one area of a space
programme. Space communications is another area of vital interest. In the past several
discussions were hold about the possibility of collaboration on a military satcom system,
because costs were very high and cost sharing was important, as was interoperability.
These efforts were Eumilsatcom, a European option involving at least seven European
states (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK),
Bimilsatcom, a Franco-British project utilising British experience with the Skynet series;
and Inmilsat/Trimilsatcom, a Franco-British-US system. All of these efforts failed
because of the lack of equality in the capability, requirement levels and funds available.
It is obvious that there is a need to assess the EU satellite communication requirements
and then ascertain whether existing or new systems are necessary.
Navigation and Positioning. In this area EU already has taken the
decision to develop Galileo system. As it has been mentioned before there is a call for
the establishment of a dialogue on security and dual use issues between the
Commission, EU/High Representative for CFSP, ESA and relevant authorities in
Member States. Greek Presidency believes that the military need to know if they will be
using it or not GALILEO - in order to make the current/future equipment compatible with
this system.
SIGINT and Early Warning. Proposals in this area remain in their
infancy. In the latter area there are ongoing deliberations between US with Europe about
national missile defense in which European industry is interest to cooperate. Also since
US with Russia are jointly developing a common program called RAMOS (Russian-
American Observation Satellite), this may be an area of potential cooperation for EU,
proposal which has been addressed in Europe in the past.41 After all there is already an
example of developing a common space infrastructure, the programme NPOESS, the
new polar orbiting environment satellite system. It will be built around two US satellites
and one European METOP from the European meteorology organization EUMETSAT.
This system will serve both military and civilian European and American needs.
(b) Estimated Cost. One last question deals with the cost for the development of a
fully European space-based defence and security capability. In the field of military
space, according to the Green paper, there are 5 programmes in Europe for
communications satellites and 3 for observation satellites, each based on its own
40
On the short run, that is by 2005: to improve the qualitative and quantitative levels of the commercial spatial
imagery products purchase (SPOT, IKONOS, QUICKBIRD, EROS-Al, ...) for the benefit of the 2nd pillar; To
negotiate with the partners οf HELIOS Ι which is the only military observation system in service in Europe, a
supplying contract of images for the benefit of the 2nd pillar; To invite the European Union States to supply more
images received from satellites, to the intelligence division of the European Union military staff. On the horizon
2005-2007: To negotiate an access to the observation military systems, HELIOS Π and SAR-LUPE and to dual
systems COSMO-SKYMED and PLEIADES, which are expected to be in service between 2004 and 2007. On the
horizon 2010-2015: Tο insure the continuity of service by purchasing its own access to the capacities, which will
be offered by the next generation of observation satellites. This requirement could be satisfy by developing of
common space programs led under the aegis of the European Union.
41
G. Klinger, acting US Deputy Under Secretary of Defence, in ‘A European space-based observation system’,
Assembly of Western European Union, March 1995, p. 23.
11
12. technology, and developed without co-ordination, thus making delicate a possible
interoperability. These programmes correspond to a cash flow to industry of the order of
€500 million per year.
According to a conference of European governments interested in the
development of a European space capability, held in Helsinki in 2001, the annual
investment to procure a military space capability in Europe to answer to the minimal
needs of the ESDP, was estimated in 716 M€ per year.42 Other studies from the French
Bureau Espace raised this investment to the annual amount of 785 M€ to be shared
among the European Union members. This cost covers communications, earth
observation, SIGINT, early warning and space surveillance.43 Green paper informs that
according to some estimates, acquiring a minimum common space capability would
require annual investments of €800 million for 10 years or so. It is clear that no single
Member State has the ability to support an independent national space policy.
It should be noted that the total yearly investment in ESA programs by
its members is about 2.3 G€. From the above-mentioned estimations, the European
military space need is about the 30% of the yearly investment for ESA. Perhaps the
transformation of ESA to a EU Space Agency who shares EU’s interests in ESDP, would
solve the problem of funding. In other words, the major problem for the development of a
European common military space capability and architecture is not linked to technical or
financial issues; instead, it is a question of political will.
VI. Conclusions
11. Since space technologies and space-based systems are of multi-use nature
and thereby capable of supporting various policies simultaneously, EU has been taking
an increasing interest in space. Until now the responsibility of developing a European
space strategy and relevant programmes lied in the competency of the first pillar
(European Commission) and of European Space Agency. EU space programme has not
taken officially into account the developments regarding the ESDP.
12. EC initialized the Green Paper on European Space Policy process, which
should embrace all aspects of European policies, including those of the CFSP-ESDP
aspects.44 Consultation period will extend until 30 May 2003.
13. Second pillar is institutionally weak to security space, and additionally it has
neither relevant policy nor programme. On the other hand it is logical to contribute in a
dialogue for security policy issues that lie in its competence.
14. The European space endeavour is based on a series of different choices and
national programmes rather than on any European policy as such; no single Member
State has the ability to support an independent national space policy,
15. Integrating space policy into Union competence poses a number of complex
and sensitive questions. There is a need for a better institutionalizing cooperation
between the various organizations.
16. Second pillar space programme can be covered with a series of different
choices, which need priorities and further elaboration.
42
European Space Directory, 2002, Seig Press, p. 48.
43
‘Building a common space defence in Europe’, BG Gavoty, ETAT-MAJOR DES ARMEES - BUREAU
ESPACE, European Satellites for Security, Bruxelles 18-19 June, 2002
44
GREEN PAPER, European Space Policy, COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels,
COM(2003) 17/5, 20 January 2003.
12
13. VII. Way ahead: Different Steps required on a Space Security Policy
17. It is recommended that further work on EU Space Security Policy should be
undertaken on the basis of the contents of the question raised by Commission’s Green
Paper and of this Food for Thought paper. In this context the Hellenic Presidency,
recommends following the same approach as the one adopted for the EU information
operations.45 To this end, recommends that the EUMC.
To convene a Task Force of experts which will be in charge of
elaborating the EU Space Policy, which will cover all CFSP-ESDP considerations. This
document has to be proposed by the end of May 2003.
EUMS will take part in the Task Force of experts, which will be also in
charge of elaborating the EU security space architecture. This Task Force is foreseen to
include the main services of the Secretariat General, which are or might be concerned
with the elaboration of the EU Space Security Policy and of related concepts. The Task
Force could identify the decision-makers and key players in the field of security space
and propose the co-ordinating mechanisms required to implement this policy.
As a way ahead, additional steps in the future could be the formulation
of a concept paper, which will elaborate all the needed space capabilities, which could
be employed to the execution of the types of scenarios for the implementation of
Petersberg taskst, the definition of the common operational requirements, the
identification of shortfalls, the proposal of remedial steps contributing thus to the
development of a balanced EU Space Security Programme, avoiding any duplication.
45
Food For Thought Paper For EU Information Operations, Eumc Doc / Ccd02-08/07-Ops 11/2001
13
