4 Amendments of Lucas HARTONG related to 2009/2226(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. RecallDeplores that the inadequate funding for the GNSS programmes led in 2007 to a revision of the current MFF which increased the ceiling for Heading 1a by €2.4 billion for the period 2007-2013; points out that again in 2010 the Commission proposed an MFF revision to increase the ceiling for Heading 1a, owing to a shortage of funding for the ITER project; emphasises that such ad hoc, emergency solutions are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of strategic, large-scale EU projects and undermine the political momentum around them ; considers that sound, long- term solutions for their funding must be devised insteadevidence of the fact that this project must be scrapped immediately from the EU budget, to prevent further future losses for the European citizens;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. DeplorWelcomes the fact that in its mid-term review in January 2011 the Commission did not propose any additional funding for the GNSS programmes for the period to 2013, which may lead to unacceptable delays in their completion; points out that, should extra funds be needed dur any further investments ing this period,rogram should be terminated immediately so that redeployment from current multiannual programmes cannot be seen as a viable option and thatand further reductions under Heading 1a, in particular concerning the 7th Framework Programme, are unacceptablewill not be needed;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that GNSS is a critical technology that could or could not revolutionise European transport infrastructure and various market sectors; points out that any delay wouldmight or might not result in a loss of international competitiveness, in current infrastructure becoming obsolete, in an inability to use technologies and applications under development and in the loss of up to 60% of the expected benefits;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that Galileo is the first EU- owned project and that to avoid uncertainties, reassure market players and bring it to full operability within the shortest possible period its budget must be steadily increascrapped; supports, therefore, the proposal that in the future, where large- scale projects such as this are concerned, a predetermined annual amount should be covered from the EU budget and that the Member States should be responsible for financing any balancewill only be funded securely and in detail, accorded by the Member States, under their responsibility;