THE GOVERNANCE OF GALILEO

Transcription

1 THE GOVERNANCE OF GALILEO GSA Administrative Board 27 March 2017, Prague, Czech Republic Jean-Jacques TORTORA, Director, ESPI Serge PLATTARD, Senior Resident Fellow, ESPI ESPI page 1

2 ESPI page 2

3 Motives for the Study Follow-up of a previous ESPI study on the future governance of GNSS Undergoing deployment of Galileo. Declaration of initial services in December 2016 Hand-over responsibility for exploitation in 2017 Necessity for a fully operational tool 24 / 7 Fluidization of the state of play between EC, ESA and GSA Preparation for new regulations Focusing on the GSA central role, which has the mandate for exploitation, was not the initial purpose, rather the global governance of Galileo. Yet, as the study progressed, the key role of the GSA emerged ESPI page 3

4 Methodology 23 interviews representing a variety of actors and stakeholders (EASA, EC, EDA, EEAS, ESA, EP, DGAC, GSA, GSoP, SPI-George Washington University, Washington DC Conducted at ESPI or on site, following the Chatham House rules Analysis of the currently applicable regulations and documents defining the governance framework. GNSS literature review ESPI page 4

5 Challenges of a Galileo Governance Governance is central because of the number of actors involved facing challenges concerning all of them Political Challenges: sovereignty, effective interaction among stakeholders, Galileo security, strong international presence Economic Challenges: cost effective organization, development of the downstream market, indirect benefits Technical Challenges: successful exploitation of the system, ensuring the evolution of the system, enabling GNSS cooperation ESPI page 5

6 Key Issues relevant to a Galileo Governance Scheme Transversal aspects: Complexity due to multiple actors, EU framework constraints, programme management at the political level, current status of the GSA, uneven interest of MS Exploitation: Resources limitations, complexity of the exploitation scheme, GSA relationships with ESA and GSoP Security: Complexity of the governance scheme and security management, misperception of security issues, innovative but incomplete solutions, specific case of PRS International relations: The Galileo / GNSS diplomacy Commercial development, uses spread and innovation: Lack of a standardized input structure for Galileo users, commercial service and liability issues, related issues to the indirect benefits of Galileo Evolution of the programme: Next generation, revision of the GNSS regulations, more user-based approach, properly sized HR, funding, ESPI page 6

7 Three Scenario Schemes Based solely on the improvements they can bring to the programme. However, relevance of the governance models depends on the guidance MS want to provide to the programme SS1: Keeping the governance scheme provided by the GNSS regulation, including marginal modifications SS2:Creation of a single common roof agency, bringing together some ESA staff and GSA staff SS3: GSA as a coordinating (administrative) agency for a Galileo steering board. Technical management of the system left to the private sector, ESA kept in its R&D role. ESPI page 7

8 SS1: Basically, a Standard GSA Unavoidable in the short term: programme under deployment, exploitation hand-over Improvements in the same general framework: Increased HR and autonomy of the GSA, power up inhouse expertise Soften the Commission control on the GSA Simplify the ESA/GSA interface But the governance scheme remains suboptimal: too complex, too many interfaces, hampers international outreach of the programme, maintains potential conflicts of interest in security ESPI page 8

9 Scheme 1: Standard GSA ESPI page 9

10 SS2: Creation of a single Common Roof Agency Moving to an users-operator-developer chain Optimal synergies through a common roof GNSS Agency bringing together GSA and ESA staff governance complexity dramatically reduced Super GSA best manages the GSoP contract with limited risks SAB should become a fully separated body accrediting the system under Council authority Such consolidated GSA becoming a central actor for international agreements regarding dedicated services Creating a new kind of Agency within the EU adapted for delivery of 24/7 services? What is the political will for these changes and to modify the bases of the programme, once more? ESPI page 10

11 Scheme 2: Super GSA ESPI page 11

12 SS3: GSA as a Coordinating Agency for a Galileo Steering Board Providing a unique interface with all stakeholders to support a programme steering board responsible for Galileo s management Governance mainly user-driven Most of technical & operational tasks removed from EU Exploitation & service provision GSoP Security monitoring & accreditation dedicated agency under Council governance EC concentrated on highest level tasks, while programme management left to the steering board ESA mainly in interaction with GSoP Difficulty: strong decision regarding the main orientation the programme is aiming at ESPI page 12

13 Scheme 3: GNSS Administration ESPI page 13

14 Conclusion Adapted governance scheme required for the next steps of the programme: Key for its success. Decision should be taken by 2020 Central role of the GSA, including for security and international relations interface Questions: Military use of Galileo authorized? Commercial dimension of the programme to be the main driver compared to sovereignty and strategic independence aspects? What responsibilities European public entities want to leave to the private sector? GSA becoming a global security agency? Success relies also on common cultural values shared by the conception authority and the exploitation authority. Two examples: GPS and Ariane. History did not provide this blending for Galileo, making the governance issue so delicate ESPI page 14

15 ESPI page 15