Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ITRE | BŘEZINA Jan ( PPE), GLANTE Norbert ( S&D), HALL Fiona ( ALDE), TOŠENOVSKÝ Evžen ( ECR) | |
Committee Opinion | AFET | KOPPA Maria Eleni ( S&D) | |
Committee Opinion | BUDG | HERCZOG Edit ( S&D) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the mid-term review of the European satellite navigation programmes: implementation assessment, future challenges and financing perspectives.
Parliament recalls that it has consistently given its full support to the European Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), implemented through the Galileo and EGNOS programmes. Galileo is aiming to become the technologically most advanced, state-of-the-art GNSS in the world, able to set the global standard for the future. EGNOS and Galileo will generate EUR 60 billion of indirect benefits to the EU economy and society, in the form of enhanced road and aviation security, reduced air pollution and pesticide consumption, new jobs and public safety.
Whilst welcoming the Commission report on the mid-term review of the European satellite navigation programmes, Parliament regrets the delay in publishing the mid-term review, for too long creating uncertainty concerning the overall progress of the project and its financial situation. Parliament call on the Commission to update the GNSS Strategic Framework in the light of the current situation, including the main actions, estimated budget and timetable necessary to meet the objectives. With a view to preventing future cost overruns, the Commission is also asked to put in place stringent cost containment policies, and to implement recommended risk mitigation measures, such as dual sourcing.
Financial situation : Members note that the current budget can only fund the deployment of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC), comprising 18 satellites. They believe that IOC should be completed by 2014 at the latest to ensure that Galileo does indeed become the second GNSS constellation of reference for receiver manufacturers. They urge the Commission to launch the four In-Orbit Validation (IOV) satellites, to establish a clear road-map for the launch of the remaining 14 satellites, and to conclude the final work packages. Parliament believes that that clear and unambiguous support from all European Institutions to the fulfilment of FOC is needed to convince users and investors of the long-term commitment of the EU, and it calls on the Commission to send a positive signal to the market to this effect. Members deplore the fact that no proposal has been made to provide additional financing for this programme by readjusting the current multiannual financial framework.
Full operation capacity (FOC) should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which is estimated to require additional financing of EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to cover operating costs of approximately EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards. Members want the Commission to pursue all possible financial efficiency savings and to put in place an appropriate financing structure to limit the necessary additional financing. Highlighting the fact that current EU funding of R&D for GNSS stands at no more than EUR 15 million per year, they warn of damage to other R&D programmes if additional funding for these activities is taken out of the current framework programme (FP7), and state that more funding should be provided under FP8 and through other measures to facilitate the development of GNSS-based products and services. They also stress the need to increase funding with a view to enhancing the development of GNSS applications and services.
Public awareness : Members are strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the benefits for the EU economy and society brought by GNSS is raised considerably and they urge the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS among potential users and investors.
International dimension : Members call on the Commission to involve regions of the world where the adoption of European GNSS technology and applications may help market development, such as Latin America, South-East Asia or Africa, and they urge the Commission and Member States to deploy all available means to quickly resolve the current compatibility issues with China.
Future challenges: financing and governance : Members emphasise the strategic importance of space policy and the GNSS programme in the drive to establish a genuine European industrial policy and call on the Commission to integrate satellite navigation in the development of all other relevant Community policies. They also call on the Commission:
in the interests of long-term stability, to submit quickly legislative proposals on the future level of services, financing and governance of the GNSS programmes; to include in the impact assessment to be performed in the framework of the upcoming legislative proposal clear and comprehensive information on: (i)the technical specifications (accuracy, geographical coverage, integrity, etc.) for the services (Open Services, Safety of Life, Commercial Services, Public Regulated Services) that the various Galileo satellite configurations could provide (including IOC and FOC, used in combination with other GNSS systems or on a stand-alone basis); (ii) the role of EGNOS services with regard to the various possible Galileo configurations and whether or not EGNOS should be kept in a FOC constellation; (iii) the costs of the possible Galileo and EGNOS configurations in terms of not just infrastructure investment but also management and contingency costs.
Financing : Parliament states that Galileo and EGNOS, as European programmes owned by the EU which address a public interest at EU level , should mainly be financed through the EU budget. Alongside the contribution from the EU budget, all possible sources of financing should be investigated, including innovative forms of financing. Members emphasise that ad hoc, emergency budgetary solutions such as those seen in the past are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of such strategic, large-scale EU projects and undermine the political momentum around them. They suggests that a predetermined annual amount should be provided from the EU budget (for the financing of the remaining Galileo infrastructure as well as the operating costs), and want the Commission to present a detailed breakdown of the estimated financial needs by summer 2011. Parliament believes that unexpected additional costs should be financed from the Community budget without endangering other existing programmes, and it calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of establishing a ‘Galileo reserve fund’ to cover such unexpected costs.
Governance : Parliament feels that the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS should address the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Commission, the GSA and the European Space Agency (ESA), as well as other relevant issues. It calls on the Commission to make swift progress with the ongoing reflection on future governance schemes for the operation of the system, to take responsibility for long-term operations and adaptation of the infrastructure, to ensure the delivery of continuous data and services to users, and to maximise opportunities for the development of commercial services. Members also stress the need for the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS to be fully transparent, noting that coordination with the Council and the European Parliament should take place on a regular basis. Lastly, they call on the Commission to establish mechanisms to ensure that GNSS based services comply with fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection.
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy adopted the own-initiative report by Vladimir REMEK (GUE/NGL, CZ) welcoming the Commission report on the mid-term review of the European satellite navigation programmes, but regrets the delay in publishing the mid-term review, for too long creating uncertainty concerning the overall progress of the project and its financial situation. This is detrimental to the market uptake of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) applications and to public support.
In order to enhance transparency, Members call on the Commission to update the GNSS Strategic Framework in the light of the current situation, including the main actions, estimated budget and timetable necessary to meet the objectives. With a view to preventing future cost overruns, the Commission is also asked to put in place stringent cost containment policies, and to implement recommended risk mitigation measures , such as dual sourcing.
Financial situation : Members recall that increased programme costs, due among other things to inaccurate cost forecasts and cost management strategies, mean that the current budget can only fund the deployment of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC), comprising 18 satellites. They believe that IOC should be completed by 2014 at the latest to ensure that Galileo does indeed become the second GNSS constellation of reference for receiver manufacturers. The committee deplores the fact that no proposal has been made to provide additional financing for this programme by readjusting the current multiannual financial framework, which has led to additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’.
Full operation capacity (FOC) should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which is estimated to require additional financing of EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to cover operating costs of approximately EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards. Members want the Commission to pursue all possible financial efficiency savings and to put in place an appropriate financing structure to limit the necessary additional financing. Highlighting the fact that current EU funding of R&D for GNSS stands at no more than EUR 15 million per year, they warn of damage to other R&D programmes if additional funding for these activities is taken out of the current framework programme (FP7), and state that more funding should be provided under FP8 and through other measures to facilitate the development of GNSS-based products and services. They also stress the need to increase funding with a view to enhancing the development of GNSS applications and services.
Public awareness : Members are strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the benefits for the EU economy and society brought by GNSS is raised considerably and they urge the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to:
put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS among potential users and investors; approach national authorities and SMEs dealing with space-related technology as potential end-users of GNSS applications, using appropriate calls for tenders, awareness campaigns and technology transfer mechanisms in order to do so, while at the same time stressing the importance of maintaining the European regional balance.
International dimension : Members call on the Commission to involve regions of the world where the adoption of European GNSS technology and applications may help market development, such as Latin America, South-East Asia or Africa, and they urge the Commission and Member States to deploy all available means to quickly resolve the current compatibility issues with China.
Future challenges: financing and governance : Members emphasise the strategic importance of space policy and the GNSS programme in the drive to establish a genuine European industrial policy and call on the Commission to integrate satellite navigation in the development of all other relevant Community policies. They also call on the Commission:
in the interests of long-term stability, to submit quickly legislative proposals on the future level of services, financing and governance of the GNSS programmes; to include in the impact assessment to be performed in the framework of the upcoming legislative proposal clear and comprehensive information on: (i)the technical specifications (accuracy, geographical coverage, integrity, etc.) for the services (Open Services, Safety of Life, Commercial Services, Public Regulated Services) that the various Galileo satellite configurations could provide (including IOC and FOC, used in combination with other GNSS systems or on a stand-alone basis); (ii) the role of EGNOS services with regard to the various possible Galileo configurations and whether or not EGNOS should be kept in a FOC constellation; (iii) the costs of the possible Galileo and EGNOS configurations in terms of not just infrastructure investment but also management and contingency costs (including IOC, FOC and other possible options).
On financing , the report states that Galileo and EGNOS, as European programmes owned by the EU which address a public interest at EU level , should mainly be financed through the EU budget. Alongside the contribution from the EU budget, all possible sources of financing should be investigated, including innovative forms of financing. Members emphasise that ad hoc, emergency budgetary solutions such as those seen in the past are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of such strategic, large-scale EU projects and undermine the political momentum around them. They suggests that a predetermined annual amount should be provided from the EU budget (for the financing of the remaining Galileo infrastructure as well as the operating costs), and want the Commission to present a detailed breakdown of the estimated financial needs by summer 2011. Members also ask the Commission to assess the possibility of establishing a ‘Galileo reserve fund’ to cover unexpected costs.
The committee feels that the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS should address the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Commission, the GSA and the European Space Agency (ESA), as well as other relevant issues. It calls on the Commission to make swift progress with the ongoing reflection on future governance schemes for the operation of the system, to take responsibility for long-term operations and adaptation of the infrastructure, to ensure the delivery of continuous data and services to users, and to maximise opportunities for the development of commercial services. Members also stress the need for the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS to be fully transparent, noting that coordination with the Council and the European Parliament should take place on a regular basis. Lastly, they call on the Commission to establish mechanisms to ensure that GNSS based services comply with fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection.
The Council adopted conclusions reaffirming its strong commitment to the European satellite radio navigation programmes, whilst calling for containment of the costs they entail. The conclusions respond to the Commission's report on the mid-term review of the EGNOS programme, which is already operational, and the Galileo programme, which is still in its development phase, with the first services scheduled to become operational in 2014-2015.
In an exchange of views, ministers highlighted the main elements of the conclusions. Responding to Member States' concerns about costs, the Commission indicated that it would be able to give a more precise assessment of the costs once the final two contracts for the deployment of Galileo had been signed , before the summer. The Council conclusions underline the strategic and economic importance of the programmes, which are intended to ensure the EU's independence in this field, establish the EU as one of the leading players in the space technology market and trigger further economic activities, in particular through the development of applications for the possibilities offered by the programmes.
At the same time, the Council invites the Commission to provide more details on the assumptions and calculations underlying the estimated additional financial needs (EUR 1.9 billion over the 2014-2020 period) for the completion of the Galileo infrastructure and to explore possible ways to achieve savings. It emphasises that any further cost overruns should be avoided . Looking forward to the Commission's proposal for the funding of the programmes under the next multiannual financial framework to apply from 2014, the Council considers that in view of the nature of the project, the programmes should continue to be financed by the EU budget.
The conclusions also stress that keeping to the timetable for the provision of the first services (2014-2015) is essential to build users' and industry's confidence in the programmes. International cooperation needs to be continued to settle issues regarding the compatibility and interoperability of the Union's system with those of other countries. Moreover, it is important to further reflect on the future governance of the programmes.
The EGNOS programme, which enhances the accuracy of civilian GPS services, became operational on 1 October 2009 and is now available for use with both an Open Service and a Safety-of-Life Service for aviation. As regards the Galileo programme, two experimental satellites are already in space in order to test the technology and secure frequencies, and the first four satellites of the future system will be launched in 2011-2012. In 2014, the first services are planned to be delivered on the basis of 18 satellites. The system will be fully operational when all 30 satellites are in place; that should be achieved in 2019/2020.
The main points of the Council conclusions may be summarised as follows:
The Council underlines that the European satellite navigation systems are of strategic importance for the independence of the EU regarding satellite navigation , positioning and timing services and will offer a relevant contribution to the implementation of the "Europe 2020" strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Furthermore, the Council:
stresses that, as EU flagship programmes in space, EGNOS and Galileo would allow the development of a strong and innovative downstream application market in Europe and will significantly contribute to the economic recovery of Europe and address major challenges such as climate change, ecological preservation and sustainable transport; emphasises the need for a timely deployment of a competitive and independent Galileo constellation and acknowledges the substantial economic and social benefits for the EU and its citizens; acknowledges the progress made in the programmes under the governance scheme put in place in 2008 and welcomes the fact that the EGNOS open service is operational and has been adopted by several user communities; it encourages the uptake of its recently operational Safety of Life service, in particular in the aviation sector, on the basis that it will be delivered free of charge to end-users; takes note that the Galileo ground and space segments developed under the In Orbit Validation phase are nearing completion and that the first orders within the current procurement of the Galileo deployment phase should lead to an Initial Operational Capability in 2014-2015. The Council calls upon all actors involved to do their utmost to achieve this goal, within their respective roles and responsibilities; underlines the importance of this progress for establishing the necessary confidence amongst the public, receiver manufacturers and application developers that will facilitate take-up and investment in products and services; highlights the need to receive, on a regular basis, information from the Commission on the implementation of the principles for the procurement of the deployment phase of the Galileo programme, in particular the 40% figure for sub-contracting, in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 683/2008; stresses that the estimated additional financial needs presented by the Commission for the completion of the infrastructure should be more thoroughly substantiated with regard to the assumptions and calculation on which they were constructed, and calls upon all actors directly involved in the governance of the programmes to take all possible measures, within their respective roles and responsibilities, to avoid any further cost overruns; urges the Commission to pursue its cost and risk analysis of the programmes to identify and evaluate the impact of all possible options for potential cost and risk reductions and optimisation, such as dual sourcing for the provision of satellites and launchers, reconsidering the implementation of the Safety of Life service and operational efficiencies; underlines its wish that the cost and risk analysis should result in cost saving , including efficiency savings, and cost containment, while reaffirming its commitment to the specific objectives of the programmes as defined in Regulation (EC) No 683/2008; notes the overall estimated operating costs of the systems, including operational management of the infrastructure, provision of the services, replacement and renewal of components with a limited service life and new technology developments, and that these costs will occur progressively as from the provision of the initial operational services; considers that, Galileo and EGNOS being European programmes owned by the EU, should continue to be financed by the EU budget , taking into account the specificities of large scale projects, the public nature of the services, as well as the fact that direct revenues will not offset costs; URGES the Commission to optimise Galileo's potential direct and indirect revenues; underlines the need to proceed with no delay with the ongoing reflection on possible future governance schemes, both public and private, for the day to day operations of the programmes, involving the future role of the Commission and Member States and taking into account the need for continuity and consistency.
Lastly, the Council urges the Commission to optimise and rationalise the use of existing structures and to give particular attention to the operational governance of EGNOS.
PURPOSE: present of the report from the Commission on the mid-term review of the European satellite radio navigation programmes.
CONTENT: in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, the Commission presents a report constituting the annual report and mid-term review of the European satellite radio navigation programmes . It takes stock of the progress made on the programmes and sets out the challenges ahead.
(1) The development of programmes since 2007: when the Commission took over responsibility for managing the Galileo and EGNOS programmes in 2008, they were experiencing significant cost overruns and delays, as well as serious governance problems. Significant progress has been made over the last three years: the EGNOS open service officially became operational on 1 October 2009. The system has operated since then in accordance with the requisite specifications. It is operated by a service provider (hereinafter'ESSP') under contract to the Commission. The main subject of the contract is the uninterrupted provision of the open service and of the safety-of-life ('SoL') service.
A milestone was reached in July 2010 with the certification of ESSP under the regulations governing the single European sky. The period for finalising the EGNOS system should be completed in the near future and the SoL service for the needs of civil aviation should be declared open in early 2011. In addition, it is planned to extend the area covered by EGNOS services gradually to include all the countries belonging to the European Civil Aviation Conference. Studies are also continuing into extending coverage into Africa, the Arab countries and the countries immediately to the east of the EU.
Where the development phase is concerned, the two experimental satellites, Giove A and Giove B, are operating very satisfactorily. In addition, the assembly of the first four satellites in the future constellation, which will be launched in 2011-2012, as ESA has confirmed, is currently being completed.
Work on the deployment phase was launched in 2008 and is proceeding actively. This work has been divided up essentially into six packages, each of which is the subject of a public procurement procedure. Competitive dialogue with the tendering firms is a key element in the procedures which have been launched.
As a result, the first four contracts, with a total value of around EUR 1 250 million , were awarded in 2010; they are for the packages covering system engineering support, satellite construction ( with an initial order for 14 satellites ), launchers (for the launch of 10 satellites, but with options for additional launches) and operations, respectively. The other two packages, relating to ground infrastructure, will be awarded in 2011. The contracts for additional equipment and facilities will also need to be awarded in the course of 2011. For those contracts where there was competitive supply, savings have been possible with respect to original estimates, whereas this was not the case in monopoly situations.
Horizontal measures: the report discusses several horizontal measures flanking the deployment of the infrastructure, which have been taken on the regulatory front, with regard to international aspects and in respect of future uses. These include the compatibility and interoperability of the systems , which are the focus of complex discussions with China, the United States, Russia, India and Japan, and also within the United Nations. Where the development of downstream markets is concerned, in June 2010, the Commission adopted a GNSS Applications Action Plan to promote the use of satellite radio navigation in what it considers to be priority fields.
(2) New challenges: However, the programmes are now faced with fresh challenges arising from the materialisation of a number of risks which were previously identified by the Commission, and the organisation of the programmes must be further fine-tuned in order to increase their efficiency.
The project has experienced cost overruns attributable in particular to the increased cost of the development phase, the increased price of the launchers, the lack of competition for the award of some packages and additional costs associated with the programme. The report notes that the additional cost of the development phase amounts to some EUR 500 million in total. The price of launch services has entailed an additional cost of more than EUR 500 million by comparison with the original budget.
The assessment shows that average annual operating costs amount to some EUR 800 million at 2010 prices, not adjusted for inflation, of which EUR 110 million is accounted for by EGNOS.
The estimates made to date point to a requirement for around EUR 1 900 million in funding over the period 2014-2019 to complete the infrastructure associated with the Galileo programme. Added to this will be the operating costs of the system once it has become operational, i.e. as from 2014-2015.
Furthermore, the economic situation of the EU and its Member States has led the Commission not to seek, up to now, the allocation of additional resources within the current multiannual financial framework, even though this is causing delays in completion of the full deployment of Galileo and an increase in overall costs.
A new basis for the work on the European satellite radio navigation programmes needs to be established so that progress can continue without compromising the objectives laid down by the European Parliament and Council. Accordingly, the Commission recommends an approach which envisages the present organisation being maintained and improved over at least 10 years, although it will have to evolve in line with the needs of the exploitation phase.
On the political front , several decisions still need to be taken. In a context in which Europe's economic and social progress is heavily dependent on mastering and using leading-edge technologies such as those relating to nuclear fusion, space, air traffic management and life sciences, it is important to reach decisions about the means, including budgetary means, of coping with the risks inherent in such technologies. Conclusions also need to be reached on the development of the EU budget and on how the risks are to be apportioned between the EU and its Member States. The decisions laying down the budgetary and financial principles governing the continuation of the European satellite radio navigation programmes will need to be taken in parallel with those concerning the governance framework. This must seek to make all the players more aware of their responsibilities, in order to ensure an orderly transition to future governance arrangements while at the same time enhancing control of the project and of its associated costs.
The adoption of such political decisions requires time and thought. Detailed proposals will be drawn up by the Commission at a later stage on the basis of the guidelines to be laid down by the European Parliament and the Council in the light of this report.
In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 683/2008, the Commission presents a report constituting the annual report and mid-term review of the European satellite radio navigation programmes . It takes stock of the progress made on the programmes and sets out the challenges ahead.
1) The development of programmes since 2007: when the Commission took over responsibility for managing the Galileo and EGNOS programmes in 2008, they were experiencing significant cost overruns and delays, as well as serious governance problems. Significant progress has been made over the last three years: the EGNOS open service officially became operational on 1 October 2009. The system has operated since then in accordance with the requisite specifications. It is operated by a service provider (hereinafter 'ESSP') under contract to the Commission. The main subject of the contract is the uninterrupted provision of the open service and of the safety-of-life ('SoL') service.
A milestone was reached in July 2010 with the certification of ESSP under the regulations governing the single European sky. The period for finalising the EGNOS system should be completed in the near future and the SoL service for the needs of civil aviation should be declared open in early 2011. In addition, it is planned to extend the area covered by EGNOS services gradually to include all the countries belonging to the European Civil Aviation Conference. Studies are also continuing into extending coverage into Africa, the Arab countries and the countries immediately to the east of the EU.
Where the development phase is concerned, the two experimental satellites, Giove A and Giove B, are operating very satisfactorily. In addition, the assembly of the first four satellites in the future constellation, which will be launched in 2011-2012, as ESA has confirmed, is currently being completed.
Work on the deployment phase was launched in 2008 and is proceeding actively. This work has been divided up essentially into six packages, each of which is the subject of a public procurement procedure. Competitive dialogue with the tendering firms is a key element in the procedures which have been launched.
As a result, the first four contracts, with a total value of around EUR 1 250 million , were awarded in 2010; they are for the packages covering system engineering support, satellite construction ( with an initial order for 14 satellites ), launchers (for the launch of 10 satellites, but with options for additional launches) and operations, respectively. The other two packages, relating to ground infrastructure, will be awarded in 2011. The contracts for additional equipment and facilities will also need to be awarded in the course of 2011. For those contracts where there was competitive supply, savings have been possible with respect to original estimates, whereas this was not the case in monopoly situations.
Horizontal measures: the report discusses several horizontal measures flanking the deployment of the infrastructure, which have been taken on the regulatory front, with regard to international aspects and in respect of future uses. These include the compatibility and interoperability of the systems , which are the focus of complex discussions with China, the United States, Russia, India and Japan, and also within the United Nations. Where the development of downstream markets is concerned, in June 2010, the Commission adopted a GNSS Applications Action Plan to promote the use of satellite radio navigation in what it considers to be priority fields.
2) New challenges: However, the programmes are now faced with fresh challenges arising from the materialisation of a number of risks which were previously identified by the Commission, and the organisation of the programmes must be further fine-tuned in order to increase their efficiency.
The project has experienced cost overruns attributable in particular to the increased cost of the development phase, the increased price of the launchers, the lack of competition for the award of some packages and additional costs associated with the programme. The report notes that the additional cost of the development phase amounts to some EUR 500 million in total. The price of launch services has entailed an additional cost of more than EUR 500 million by comparison with the original budget.
The assessment shows that average annual operating costs amount to some EUR 800 million at 2010 prices, not adjusted for inflation, of which EUR 110 million is accounted for by EGNOS.
The estimates made to date point to a requirement for around EUR 1 900 million in funding over the period 2014-2019 to complete the infrastructure associated with the Galileo programme. Added to this will be the operating costs of the system once it has become operational, i.e. as from 2014-2015.
Furthermore, the economic situation of the EU and its Member States has led the Commission not to seek, up to now, the allocation of additional resources within the current multiannual financial framework, even though this is causing delays in completion of the full deployment of Galileo and an increase in overall costs.
A new basis for the work on the European satellite radio navigation programmes needs to be established so that progress can continue without compromising the objectives laid down by the European Parliament and Council. Accordingly, the Commission recommends an approach which envisages the present organisation being maintained and improved over at least 10 years, although it will have to evolve in line with the needs of the exploitation phase.
On the political front , several decisions still need to be taken. In a context in which Europe's economic and social progress is heavily dependent on mastering and using leading-edge technologies such as those relating to nuclear fusion, space, air traffic management and life sciences, it is important to reach decisions about the means, including budgetary means, of coping with the risks inherent in such technologies. Conclusions also need to be reached on the development of the EU budget and on how the risks are to be apportioned between the EU and its Member States. The decisions laying down the budgetary and financial principles governing the continuation of the European satellite radio navigation programmes will need to be taken in parallel with those concerning the governance framework. This must seek to make all the players more aware of their responsibilities, in order to ensure an orderly transition to future governance arrangements while at the same time enhancing control of the project and of its associated costs.
The adoption of such political decisions requires time and thought. Detailed proposals will be drawn up by the Commission at a later stage on the basis of the guidelines to be laid down by the European Parliament and the Council in the light of this report.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8071
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0265/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0165/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0165/2011
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE460.827
- Committee opinion: PE456.900
- Committee draft report: PE441.020
- Follow-up document: COM(2011)0005
- Follow-up document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2011)0005
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Committee opinion: PE440.114
- Committee opinion: PE440.114
- Follow-up document: COM(2011)0005 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE441.020
- Committee opinion: PE456.900
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE460.827
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0165/2011
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2011)8071
Amendments | Dossier |
94 |
2009/2226(INI)
2010/05/12
AFET
10 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Stresses its support for Galileo, the European global satellite radio-navigation programme
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Supports the creation of a European Space Situational Awareness Capacity as soon as possible in order to protect critical European infrastructure in space; in this context, is fully supportive of the complementary work undertaken by the European Space Agency and the European Defence Agency in this area;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the provision of Galileo services must be consistent with the principle that Galileo is a civil system under civil control, and that all uses thereof must comply with international law, the UN Charter and the EU Treaties; insists that the European Parliament consent will be a prerequisite to any military use of Galileo and GNSS in the context of military CSDP missions or other military missions, operations and activities;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Insists that the provision of Galileo services must be consistent with the principle that Galileo, despite its possible military use, is a civil system under civil control, and that all uses thereof must comply with international law, the UN Charter and the EU treaties;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates, however, in view of the vast investment from the general budget of the European Union, its position that the Galileo system should be deployable in support of CFSP/ CSDP, including crisis- management operations, and of the implementation of EU solidarity and mutual-assistance clauses; calls, now that the European Framework Cooperation (EFC) between the Commission, the EDA and the ESA has been activated, for this cooperation to be extended to Galileo;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a (new) In view of the serious financial crisis that EU member-states face, considers that such big amounts should not be used from the community budget for a project that might even increase the struggle for supremacy of control in space;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that under no circumstances should European space policy contribute to the overall militarisation and weaponisation of space and that this necessitates that Galileo remains a strictly civilian system not being used in support of CSDP operations, and reaffirms its commitment to the principles laid down in the UN Outer Space Treaty, in particular - the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes; - the promotion of international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space; - the liability of the launching authority in the event of damage being caused to a third state, as further specified in the UN Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that under no circumstances should European space policy, which was designed for peaceful purposes, contribute to the overall
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
source: PE-441.280
2011/02/16
BUDG
23 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Emphasises the strategic importance of space policy – and particularly of the two flagship initiatives, the GMES and GNSS programmes – in the drive to establish a genuine European industrial policy based on practical projects with tangible benefits for the public and for business;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Deplores the fact, therefore, 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 during this period, redeployment from current multiannual programmes cannot be seen as a viable option and that further reductions under Heading 1a, in particular concerning the 7th Framework Programme, are unacceptable;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion 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
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Emphasises that GNSS is a critical technology that could revolutionise European transport infrastructure and various market sectors; points out that other, non-European GNSS programmes will come into operation in the medium term and that any delay would thus 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 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Asks the Commission to inform the European Parliament as soon as possible if any additional funding needs occur for the timely completion of GNSS, at least presenting an updated financial overview by the end of 2011;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion 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 s
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that Galileo is the first EU- owned project
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion 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 increased; 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 mainly be responsible for financing any balance; meanwhile identifying underspent areas of the EU budget, which could contribute to financing additional needs of such large-scale projects;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion 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 increased; 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
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion 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 increased; 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
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Invites the Commission to consider the possibility of crediting the revenue from Galileo’s commercial activities to the EU budget;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Asks the Commission to provide it with details of how the annual cost of maintaining Galileo, estimated at €800 million, is to be met once the system is operational;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points out that the estimated figure
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points out that the estimated figure (€1.9
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the in
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls 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
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. 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 it preferable to devise a long-term budgetary solution that will provide EU-level funding in keeping with the technical demands of these programmes and with a timetable that ensures their relevance and viability;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
source: PE-458.782
2011/03/14
ITRE
61 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the EU is currently
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas the insufficient 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, and 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, whereas, therefore, sound, global and long-term solutions for their funding must be devised instead,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas increased costs of the programme, due amongst other to inaccurate costs forecasts and cost management strategies, allow the current budget to only fund the deployment of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC), comprising 18 satellites,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas, before making a decision for further financial commitment from the EU budget in the next Multiannual Financial Framework, a clear assessment of all the possible technical options and related costs and benefits needs to be presented by the Commission,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas in the coming years it is expected that a periodic disturbance in the Earth's ionosphere, caused by solar flares, will affect the radio signals that are transmitted by GNSS, including Galileo,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas the 7th Space Council Resolution of 25 November 2010 invited all European institutional actors to consider as a high priority the use of launchers developed in Europe,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to include in the foreseen impact assessment performed in the framework of the upcoming legislative proposal, clear and comprehensive information on: - the technical specifications (accuracy, geographical coverage, integrity, etc.) of the services (Open Services, Safety of Life, Commercial Services, Public Regulated Services) that the different Galileo satellite configurations could provide (including IOC and FOC, used in combination with other GNSS systems or as stand alone); - the role of EGNOS services with regards to the different possible Galileo configurations and the need, or not, for keeping EGNOS in a FOC constellation; - the associated costs of the possible Galileo and EGNOS configurations in terms of infrastructure investments but also management and contingency costs (including IOC, FOC or other possible option including the zero option);
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. In order to enhance transparency, calls on the Commission to propose an update of the GNSS Strategic Framework (C(2008)8378)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. To prevent future cost overruns, calls on the Commission to put in place stringent cost containment and risk mitigation policies, including those necessary to keep launch costs under control; suggests that the Commission study the findings obtained so far and, to do so, make use of independent experts, in
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. To prevent future cost overruns, calls on the Commission to put in place stringent cost containment and risk mitigation policies,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. To
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the European GNSS programme is now fully funded by the Union budget (EUR 4,3 billion) for the definition, validation and deployment phases up to 2013, and is consequently fully owned by the European Union,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to implement recommended risk mitigation measures such as dual procurement in all critical work packages, in order to be able to keep to the ambitious schedule; supports, in particular with respect to the launchers, the Council resolution inviting all European actors to consider as a high priority the use of launchers developed in Europe; calls on the Commission to favour a ‘double source’ selection process;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Supports the Council Resolution (adopted by the Competitiveness Council on 25 November 2010) inviting all European institutional actors to consider as a high priority the use of launchers developed in Europe; therefore calls on the Commission to favour a "double source" selection process;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to carry on an assessment of the use of the competitive dialogue in the procurement of the work packages, taking into account the level of effective competition in the relevant markets and the possibility of dual sourcing;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Believes that IOC, able to provide initial services based on 18 satellites, should be completed by 2014 at the latest to ensure that Galileo does indeed become
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Believes that IOC, able to provide initial
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Is convinced that the aim of Full Operating Capacity (FOC), based on a constellation of 27 satellites plus a suitable number of spare satellites and adequate ground infrastructure, is a prerequisite to attain the added value of Galileo in terms of authentication, high precision and uninterrupted service and therefore to reap the economic and societal benefits; believes that clear and unambiguous support from all European Institutions to the fulfilment of FOC is needed to convince users and investors of the long- term commitment of the EU; calls on the Commission to send a positive signal to the market to this effect;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Is convinced that the aim of Full Operating Capacity (FOC), based on a constellation of 27 satellites plus
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that not only is Galileo actually the first major EU-owned project of this type but that it also addresses a requirement that is in the public interest at EU level, thus justifying recourse to public financing; emphasises, therefore, 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 mainly be responsible for financing any additional cost by making available supplementary funding to the EU budget, meanwhile identifying underspent areas of the EU budget, which could contribute to financing additional needs of such large- scale projects;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes that all possible sources of financing should be investigated for the financing of the remaining infrastructure as well as operating costs of Galileo, including participation by Member States - in particular the Member States defence Ministries, being the main beneficiaries of the Public Regulated Service - and the industrial sector as main users of the FOC services;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Galileo
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that the development of GNSS applications and services is essential in order to ensure that the infrastructure investment which Galileo represents is fully exploited and that the Galileo system is developed to its full capacity;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Points out that the estimated figures included in the mid-term review for the period after 2013 remain purely indicative; therefore, suggests to have a fixed annual amount of €1.1 billion dedicated to Galileo in each year of the next MFF in order to increase the accountability, predictability and transparency of the project;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is disappointed that no additional financing for this programme has been proposed by readjusting the current Multiannual Financial Framework, leading to further delays, additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’; in that light,
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is disappointed that no additional financing for this programme has been proposed by readjusting the current Multiannual Financial Framework, leading to further delays, additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’; in that light, believes that FOC should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which would require an additional financing of EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to cover operating costs of EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards; stresses that the success of the EU programmes Galileo and EGNOS must continue to be guaranteed by the EU;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is disappointed that no additional financing for this programme has been proposed by readjusting the current Multiannual Financial Framework, leading to further delays, additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’; in that light, believes that FOC should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which according to the Commission would require an additional financing of EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to cover operating costs of EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Is disappointed that no additional financing for this programme has been proposed by readjusting the current Multiannual Financial Framework, leading to further delays, additional costs and possibly the loss of a ‘window of opportunity’; in that light, believes that FOC should be reached by 2018 at the latest, which according to the Commission would require an additional financing of at least EUR 1.9 billion and annual funding to cover operating costs of approximately EUR 800 million from 2014 onwards;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to work transparently with the Council and the European Parliament to reach agreement on the level of additional funding necessary, taking into consideration possible reductions in costs through de- scoping, for example by excluding the Safety-of-Life service;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas EGNOS is already used on a daily basis by 80 000 European farmers and
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Is of the opinion that in the future sufficient funding should be provided for R&D for GNSS and other measures to facilitate the development of GNSS-based products and services; highlights that the current EU funding for these activities is limited to merely EUR 15 million per year; warns of damage to other R&D programmes if additional funding for Galileo is taken out of the Framework Programme;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Is of the opinion that in the future
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to guarantee adequate levels of funding for GNSS research and development, as well as for the full implementation of Galileo, in the context of the budgetary procedure and the future multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of establishing a "Galileo reserve fund", which could be used in case of the occurrence of unexpected costs in order to avoid further delays in the realisation of the project;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Stresses the need to increase funding with a view to the development of GNSS applications and services that will make it possible to use the Galileo programme to its full capacity;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the benefits for the EU economy and society due to GNSS is raised considerably among decision- makers and the wider public; applauds the setting-up of concrete initiatives, such as the Galileo children's competition and the GNSS innovation prize; urges the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS with potential users and investors, promoting the use of GNSS- based services, as well as identifying and federating the demand for these services in Europe;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the benefits for the EU economy and society due to GNSS is raised considerably among decision- makers and the wider public; applauds the setting-up of concrete initiatives, such as the annual Galileo Masters competition for ideas, for which there were 350 entries from 44 countries in 2010, the Galileo children's competition and the GNSS innovation prize; urges the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS with potential users and investors;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Is strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the benefits for the EU economy and society due to GNSS is raised considerably among decision- makers and the wider public; applauds the setting-up of concrete initiatives, such as the Galileo children's competition and the GNSS innovation prize;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 a (new) Urges the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS with potential users and investors; in this context, stresses that Galileo is in the public interest at EU level and thus has a justified claim to financing from public funds;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas Galileo
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Commission and the GSA to approach national authorities and SME-s dealing with space-related technology as potential end-users of GNSS applications, using appropriate calls for tenders, awareness campaigns and technology transfer mechanisms, while stressing simultaneously the importance of maintaining the European regional balance;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Notes that China has demonstrated a lack of interest in resolving the current radio spectrum issues; calls on the Commission to present a full, transparent and early analysis of how Galileo can continue to move forward if the compatibility issues remain unresolved;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to integrate satellite navigation – an infrastructure technology of crucial importance – as a core element in the development of all other relevant Community policies;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Points out that long-term stability is important in order to minimise additional delays, costly redesign, and destabilisation of the user base; in this respect, calls on the Commission to quickly submit legislative proposals on the future level of services, financing and governance of the GNSS programmes; stresses that priority should be given to financing from public funds, but that provision must at the same time be made for ensuring the flexibility required for implementing the programme beyond the Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Points out that long-term stability is important in order to minimise additional delays, costly redesign, and destabilisation of the user base; in this respect, calls on the Commission to quickly submit legislative
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Points out that long-term stability is important in order to minimise additional delays, costly redesign, and destabilisation of the user base; in this respect, calls on the Commission to
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Believes that the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS should address the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Commission, the GSA and the European Space Agency
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Believes that the long-term governance and management structure of GNSS should address the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Commission, the GSA and the European Space Agency (ESA), as well as other relevant issues, such as appropriate cost-sharing , the revenue-sharing mechanism, liability regime, pricing policy and the possible involvement and contribution of the private sector in the GNSS programmes;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Stresses the importance of any long- term governance and management structure of GNSS being fully transparent, financially sound and accountable and managed in the most responsible manner; notes, in this regard, that coordination with the Council and the European Parliament including in- depth updates should take place on a regular basis;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas because of these delays and the huge cost increase there has been a loss of investor confidence,
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Considers that Galileo and EGNOS, being European programmes owned by the EU, should continue to be financed by the EU budget (including through possible new mechanisms compatible with the specificities of large infrastructure programmes), taking into account the public nature of the services, as well as the fact that potential direct revenues will not offset costs;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Commission to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensures that GNSS based services and applications, both private and public regulated, respect the fundamental rights of citizens such as privacy and data protection;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas forecasts estimate that EGNOS and Galileo
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas with the building-up of four global and two regional satellite navigation systems by different international actors, speed is a vital element for Galileo in order
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas with the building-up of four global and two regional satellite navigation systems by different international actors, speed in making services available is a vital element for Galileo in order to be recognised as the second GNSS of choice,
source: PE-460.827
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE440.114&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-440114_EN.html |
docs/1 |
|
docs/1 |
|
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE441.020New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE441.020 |
docs/2 |
|
docs/2 |
|
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE456.900&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-456900_EN.html |
docs/3 |
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE460.827New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE460.827 |
docs/4 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0165_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0165_EN.html |
docs/5 |
|
events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/1 |
|
events/1 |
|
events/3/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 52
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-165&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0165_EN.html |
docs/6/body |
EC
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-165&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0165_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-265New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0265_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
council |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ITRE/7/01770New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 52
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|