paris

Making space pay: satellite images, such as this from ERS2, can help control pollution. Credit: ESA

The ruling council of the European Space Agency (ESA) last week adopted a new strategy that marks a significant shift in philosophy. Its top-down, bureaucratic organization is becoming more streamlined, geared to the needs of scientists, industry, government and other ‘users’.

The strategic plan by the ruling council, made up of the heads of space agencies, will be tested later this year, when ministers from member states meet to decide whether to endorse the new directions, and to agree on funding for the proposed programmes. Sources in several states predict that the strategy will attract a broad consensus from space ministers, although funding for the science programme remains contentious.

The ministerial meeting was expected in June, but may be delayed because of the German general election in the autumn and because smaller member states are unhappy with the current lack of a firm commitment on science spending (see below).

The strategy bears the stamp of Antonio Rodotá, an industrialist who was appointed director general of ESA last year with the remit of reforming the agency. It has already trimmed its 3,500 staff by a quarter over the past three years. The proposed changes reflect the general shift by member states, already evident from the last ministerial meeting in 1995 (see Nature 377, 667; 1995), away from prestige projects such as an independent manned space programme, towards more commercial and social goals.

UK science minister John Battle has strongly endorsed the new direction, in a marked departure from the hostility that has characterized Britain's attitude to ESA over much of the past decade.

“I've been stunned at the degree to which ESA has adopted what the UK and others have been saying,” says one official at the British National Space Centre, cautioning that much work remains to be done in putting the new philosophy into practice.

The flagship of the approach is a proposed comprehensive programme in Earth observation. Its structure is based on ESA's science programmes, with participating member states required to approve overall funding for five years — around ECU 450 million annually — and ESA deciding how money should be allocated to proposals by users.

David Southwood — professor of physics at Imperial College, London, and currently on secondment to ESA to help develop the programme — calls this a “radically new way of doing business” and says the five-year funding will provide a stability that is lacking in the current approach, in which missions are approved one at a time. This has resulted in a lack of forward planning, says Southwood, who points out that ESA has no plans for observation satellites beyond Envisat, scheduled for launch in 1999. Budgetary stability should also facilitate collaboration with US and Japanese space agencies on long-term ventures. Global programmes to study major scientific challenges are already under discussion, he adds.

The programme will focus on jointly developing basic science and applications, with the launch of several science and technology demonstrators called Earth Explorers. The first four priority areas in this programme, headed by ESA's head of science Roger Bonnet, are atmospheric dynamics, the Earth's radiation budget, a gravity mission and a land surface hyperspectral. A series of optional Earthwatch missions will be conducted to develop commercial and public service applications.

The main challenge facing ESA is to make a smooth transition from technology demonstration to operational use, says Southwood, pointing out that Europe often lacks the mechanisms for using space data, such as ocean studies. Many feel that ESA should focus on research and development, while working closely with industry and the European Commission to transfer technologies when these are ready for exploitation.

ESA and the commission intend to sign an agreement outlining mechanisms to introduce Earth observation into agriculture, maritime and other sectors. Another goal will be to reduce duplication between national and European efforts, says Southwood. “Having got the programme rolling, a vital need is to work out how we make it a European programme.”