The European Parliament and the Council of the EU reached a provisional agreement on the future constellation for secure connectivity on Thursday 17 November, after finding common ground on how the programme will be financed. The name of the constellation was revealed on this occasion: it will be IRIS² (for ‘Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnection and Security by Satellite’), a reference to the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology.
“I welcome our agreement on the new European satellites, which will greatly enhance the Union’s strategic autonomy in space. Above all, I am pleased that this constellation is a model in terms of spatial and environmental sustainability, following proposals from Parliament”, Parliament rapporteur Christophe Grudler (Renew Europe, French) told EUROPE after the negotiations.
Negotiations progressed very quickly and were concluded within nine months of the presentation of the text, which is “very fast for a space dossier”, said one observer, who hopes to see the launch of the initial service by the end of 2024.
One of the reasons for this speed was the outbreak of war in Ukraine and the key role played by the US Starlink constellation in the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invader, we were told.
Three main points remained on the agenda, as reported in our articles (see EUROPE 13062/20): - the role of the European Space Agency (ESA) in the constellation architecture; - the question of micro-launchers and the degree of European preference for launchers; - finally, the perennial and thorny budgetary issue. This last point was cardinal in defining the first two, as two sources told us.
The level of budgetary ambition —€2.4 billion— was agreed between the two co-legislators. The crux of the problem was how to finance it. Parliament was of the opinion that “new money” was needed for this new project, in particular from the budgetary margins. The use of margins means transferring funds from a budget heading to a budget line financing a specific programme.
In addition, Parliament proposed to use decommitments from the Horizon Europe Framework Programme above the agreed threshold of €500 million agreed under the Interinstitutional Agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), i.e. to exploit the unused funds from the difference between commitments and payments. The EU Council, for its part, intended to replenish the programme by redeploying funds, not by providing “new money”. It was clearly opposed to the use of decommitments and showed flexibilities on the margins.
Finally, an upper threshold of €200 million for the margins and €200 million for the decommitments under the ceiling set in the context of the MFF was agreed. Negotiations on this point were very difficult, a source told us, and Parliament found it difficult to understand the EU Council’s inflexibility on decommitments.
Other avenues for the budget
This agreement on the budget is not the only solution for financing the future constellation, which has a total public-private budget of six billion euros.
Some consider that the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 could be a way to inject additional funds into the Constellation programme.
As for the use of the future European Sovereignty Fund, which had also been mentioned to support the space sector (see EUROPE 13035/26), it is still too early to decide, a senior official told us. However, this Fund will not directly finance the Constellation, but the reconstitution of value chains on critical technologies that would not be totally European, a source confirmed to us.
ESA in question
The role of ESA in the architecture has been decided and will be mandatory (‘shall’). The co-legislators debated for a long time whether ESA (‘shall’) or (‘may’) be consulted, with Parliament and the Commission favouring a flexible approach, while the EU Council, under German impetus, wanted to make its consultation mandatory.
“The European Commission should be a ‘programme manager’, it should have the prerogative to decide to whom it delegates and it should not be up to the co-legislator to say so”, a source close to the dossier told us.
In any case, the governance of the Constellation should not be comparable to that of Galileo and Copernicus, the source specified. Thus, ESA would not lead the procurement and selection of the consortium(s) and would not be co-manager of the programme, according to the same source.
Space policies increasingly have a defence dimension. In the source’s view, ESA’s governance would not be adapted to accompany this evolution and should be reformed.
As regards the use of micro-launchers, an important issue for many Member States, notably Germany, Spain and Portugal, the EU Council won the case. On the other hand, the co-legislators agreed to strengthen the preference for European launchers. Where the Commission proposed to use launches on the territory of Member States where possible, the text now proposes to reverse the relationship by saying that services in third countries can only be used in justified and exceptional situations.
Architecture in motion
The question of the architecture and the number of satellites has yet to be clarified. However, the Constellation will be based on a multi-orbital system with a much smaller number of satellites, namely a few hundred, compared to other constellations currently being deployed, which include several thousand satellites. Its technological evolution will, in any case, be “incremental”.
The text now has to be submitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives and then to Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy by the end of the year. The plenary vote is expected to take place early next year. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)