The overall aim of GMES is to support an independent European capacity regarding environmental and security policies by fostering the timely provision of quality data, information and knowledge. This is a very ambitious initiative. In order to succeed in the long term it must consider a wide range of factors. The overall coherence of the system will depend not only on the infrastructure of monitoring systems, processing centres, data and information libraries and dissemination systems but also on institutions and organisations, their interfaces and the processes (day to day working processes, legal, financial, decision making etc) which allow them to interoperate successfully. The resulting system performance will be concerned with the performance of monitoring systems and IT infrastructure and additionally on the ability for organisations to interact and make decisions on appropriate timescales (e.g. regarding working practices, evolving requirements, funding, data policy). This GOSIS project aimed to draw together infrastructure, organisational and process issues to provide scenarios and recommendations regarding a foundation operational GMES system, for example, centralised versus distributed, real time versus archive driven, built on existing observation systems versus new systems. It also strove to reveal gaps in organisational structures and interfaces and pointed to areas where existing operational processes will need to be developed to take advantage of the benefits GMES will offer. The approach followed in this study was based on an analysis of: - GMES reference concepts from the EC, particularly those published in the GMES communication; - Expectations of GMES communities (e.g. distilled from Integrated Projects (IPs), selected by the EC, in oceans (Mersea) and land (Geoland) and ESA GSE projects); - Related initiatives with strong interfaces to GMES (e.g. Inspire, ESA Oxygen, GEO etc). During the first phase of the study, the team focussed on the following aspects: - An analysis of GMES-based around the concept of 'GMES communities' - groups of existing users of geo-information for environmental and security purposes who could benefit from GMES services and infrastructure. In the subsequent report, we presented a detailed analysis of the organisational structure of the oceans, land, civil protection, humanitarian aid and security communities. - Investigation of a range of related communities such as meteorology and related initiatives and programmes (e.g. Inspire, Eionet2). - An examination a wide range of potential governance structures for GMES such as GMES agency, operating partnership, joint undertaking, association, private sector initiative and distributed model. At this juncture, a stakeholder workshop was held in Brussels (on 19 November 2004). Attendees included participants from the GPO and leading members of the land, oceans and meteorological communities. The discussion at the workshop sought to characterise the GMES supply chain, in order to define the role of GMES in its broader context. Important overlaps between providers and users were recognised - many elements in the chain are both users and providers of data and information. Possible organisational models for GMES were presented and these were discussed at length. The outcome of the workshop was summarised in an ad-hoc report, and contributed to the extensive revision of GOSIS report on potential GMES organisational models. Besides the feedback obtained from stakeholders who attended the GOSIS workshop, a large number of one-on-one consultations were undertaken by the GOSIS team. This included extensive consultations with representatives of key institutions, such as; EC, ESA, Eumetsat, EEA, ECMWF, DG JRC and EUSC. Issues discussed included; possible governance models for GMES, the organisations' foreseen role in GMES service provision, each organisations expectations of GMES and their long-term view. This feedback, together with the analysis of the expectations of the various GMES communities, gave rise to the development of a number of GMES service provision scenarios. Each of these service scenarios represents a possible way in which GMES can be implemented by the GMES authority with its own advantages and disadvantages. Scenario 1 largely describes the status quo, but with the addition of long term funding for observation systems and their related infrastructure (upstream monitoring only), either directly or through long term data purchase agreements. Funding may be difficult to justify, as there is little control or stimulation of the market. Users remain largely disconnected and uncoordinated. Scenario 1 could achieve European capability and autonomy in monitoring (for environment and security), but is unlikely to avoid duplication of activities in the production of geo-strategic information, and possibly will not achieve the most effective provision of information for the end users. Scenario 3 requires a bewildering level of coordination through the different levels in the value chain, across thematic areas and across the activities of member states and by European level institutions. It will almost certainly be resisted strongly by institutions in member states who already have a mandate to provide policy relevant information. While some may benefit by being the GMES information providers, many will perceive an unwelcome loss of control for their own policy implementation. There exists a possible variant of Scenario 1, which was not considered as a separate scenario, where the GMES authority overseas the production of core data sets and information without having direct influence over the design and build of upstream observation systems. In this scenario, it is assumed that the increased demand for data, or the guarantee of repeated block purchase of data, by the GMES Authority will be sufficient to stimulate the public or private sector to build, launch and operate additional satellites or provide additional ground-based monitoring systems. This scenario has been applied in the US, where the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) uses data from the Landsat Project (supported by U.S. Geological Survey and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), and also routinely buys data from, amongst others, Space imaging (Ikonos VHR data) and Digital Globe (Quickbird VHR data). To some extent, this alternative scenario also represents the pilot phase in the evolution of GMES where initially core data and information will be provided through the fast track operational services which are based on the existing space segment and other data sources. Our baseline assumption is however, that in the long-term the GMES Authority will exert control over upstream observation systems (space and in situ) in order to ensure that any data gaps are filled to support the high level GMES objective of providing sustained, reliable and timely services for the environment and security. During the second, synthesis phase of the study, the team carried out the following tasks: - Development of a generic value chain for GMES information services, and three service provision scenarios for the GMES authority based on this model. - Mapping of the GMES fast-track projects (land monitoring, marine core service, and Inscrit) and existing European level organisations already involved in GMES-type activities (including ESA, Eumetsat, EEA, EUSC, DG JRC, ECMWF and EMSA) onto the value chain model. - A legal study to provide more insight into GMES institutional and scoping scenarios and looked at some of the key legal issues, particularly in the context of satellite data. - The development of three possible governance models based on the balance of functions between the different key organisations involved in GMES. In the final phase the team elaborated recommendations regarding the organisational framework, infrastructure and process for GMES implementation. The study also introduced and elaborated of a system of systems engineering approach for GMES. During the last five months of the project, the team actively supported the EC at a number of GMES Advisory Council Working Group meetings on governance.