««« « « « « 1999 « « 2004 «««
Session document
FINAL A5-0288/2001
20 July 2001
REPORT
on the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council on GALILEO (COM(2000) 750 – C5-0110/2001 – 2001/2059(COS))
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Brigitte Langenhagen
Draftsman(*): Yves Piétrasanta, Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy
(*) Hughes procedure
RR\446386EN.doc PE 301.798
EN EN PE 301.798 2/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN CONTENTS
Page
PROCEDURAL PAGE ...... 4
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION ...... 5
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT...... 10
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS...... 18
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, EXTERNAL TRADE, RESEARCH AND ENERGY ...... 26
(*) Hughes procedure
RR\446386EN.doc 3/31 PE 301.798
EN PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 28 November 2000, the Commission forwarded to Parliament its communication to the European Parliament and the Council on GALILEO (COM(2000) 750 – 2001/2059(COS)).
At the sitting of 15 March 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred the communication to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for their opinions (C5-0110/2001).
The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had appointed Brigitte Langenhagen rapporteur at its meeting of 24 January 2001.
At the sitting of 5 April 2001 the President announced that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would deliver its opinion in accordance with the Hughes procedure and would be involved drafting the report.
The committee considered the Commission communication and the draft report at its meetings of 29 May 2001 and 10 July 2001.
At the latter meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 41 votes to 9, with 4 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Konstantinos Hatzidakis chairman; Helmuth Markov and Emmanouil Mastorakis, vice-chairmen; Brigitte Langenhagen, rapporteur; and Sir Robert Atkins, Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Carlos Bautista Ojeda (for Reinhold Messner, pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Rolf Berend, Theodorus J.J. Bouwman, Philip Charles Bradbourn, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero, Luigi Cesaro, Luigi Cocilovo, Danielle Darras, Garrelt Duin, Alain Esclopé, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Mary Honeyball, Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Giorgio Lisi, Sérgio Marques, Erik Meijer, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Francesco Musotto, Juan Ojeda Sanz, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Karla M.H. Peijs, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Giovanni Saverio Pittella (for John Hume), Samuli Pohjamo, Adriana Poli Bortone, Alonso José Puerta, Reinhard Rack, Carlos Ripoll i Martínez Bedoya, Isidoro Sánchez García, Gilles Savary, Ingo Schmitt, Elisabeth Schroedter (for Camilo Nogueira Román), Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Margie Sudre, Hannes Swoboda (for Joaquim Vairinhos), Margrietus J. van den Berg, Ari Vatanen, Demetrio Volcic and Mark Francis Watts.
The opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy are attached.
The report was tabled on 20 July 2001.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.
PE 301.798 4/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council on GALILEO (COM(2000) 750 – C5-0110/2001 – 2001/2059(COS))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000) 750 – C5-0110/2001),
– having regard to the resolution of the Council of Transport Ministers of 5 April 2001 on GALILEO,
– having regard to the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council of 24 March 2001,
– having regard to the Commission communication ‘Galileo - Involving Europe in a New Generation of Satellite Navigation Services’ (COM(1999) 54),
– having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper ‘Cost Benefit Analysis Results for GALILEO’ of 22 November 2000,
– having regard to its resolution of 13 January 1999, on the Commission communication ‘Towards a Trans-European Positioning and Navigation Network: including A European Strategy for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)’,1
– having regard to the Council resolution of 19 December 1994 on the European contribution to the development of a Global Navigation Satellite System,2
– having regard in particular to Article 154 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (A5-0288/2001),
A. having regard to the common interest of the European Union in a coherent strategy for GALILEO,
B. whereas the independence and reliability of GALILEO can make an important contribution towards achieving the Community objective of sustainable mobility for the environment and industry on the territory of the European Union, in particular by substantially improving railway interoperability and, more generally, management of traffic and travel on European territory,
1 OJ C 104, 14.04.1999, p. 73. 2 OJ C 379, 31.12.1994.
RR\446386EN.doc 5/31 PE 301.798
EN C. whereas the development of GALILEO furthers the technological potential of Europe as a business location,
D. whereas GALILEO opens up qualified access to high technology for Europe, so that future-oriented employment possibilities can be created,
E. having particular regard to the fact that the European Union cannot allow itself to lag behind in the future development of technological capacities and the management of related technologies in the area of space technologies, and that for strategic reasons it must be involved in the monitoring of a satellite navigation system,
F. reaffirming its view that further progress in this area should take place on the basis of a clear political signal from the Council,
G. whereas the European Space Agency has already taken steps to continue with the programme on the basis of the favourable statements on its development by the Council and the European Parliament,
H. whereas any more delay in programming further steps in this development will have serious consequences as regards the planning of the other phases that follow,
I. whereas further delay in developing GALILEO would have serious consequences for the notified time window of 2008, which is linked to the plans to update the GPS (Global Positioning System)(GPS II), and for the industry;
J. whereas according to economic analyses a strong economic upswing can be expected in the area of satellite navigation and related services,
K. whereas GALILEO makes possible effective measurement and control processes in the area of commercial, scientific and security task-setting,
1. Notes the Commission communication and the Stockholm European Council’s conclusions of 24 March 2001 and the resolution of the Council of Transport Ministers of 5 April 2001 on GALILEO, and concludes from these that there is a need for further clarification if an informed decision is to be reached;
2. Calls on the Commission to make every effort to persuade those countries which are hesitant about GALILEO for financial reasons that the project should be implemented;
3. Calls on the Commission to present, by 1 July 2001, a proposal for the establishment of a management structure for GALILEO;
4. Calls on the Commission to present, by 15 November 2001, a proposal for a general financial structure for GALILEO in the context of the establishment of its management structure;
5. Calls on the Commission to provide further information on the organisation, administration, staff and funding of the entity, which will be in charge of the management of the project;
PE 301.798 6/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN 6. Calls on the Commission to develop the proposal to build up a management and finance structure in such a way that European industry, over and above those sections of it that have already agreed, is motivated to take part in the development and subsequent phases;
7. Stresses, furthermore, the technical and industrial importance of GALILEO in maintaining the European space and telecommunication industries' high standards in terms both of skills and competitiveness;
8. Calls on the Commission to carry out a detailed analysis of possible revenue flows and to quantify the legal structural framework conditions needed for these;
9. Requests that as well as the overall financial strategy for the GALILEO project, due account is taken both of its economic impact in terms of work generated directly and indirectly and its impact in terms of direct and indirect employment for European industries;
10. Calls on the Commission first to carry out a more comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis of GALILEO, including a comparison with alternative communications systems for air, rail and maritime traffic, as well as for traffic management and control;
11 Calls on the Commission, in the interests of increased efficiency, technological added value and GALILEO’s client-orientation, to examine alternative wavelengths as well as the need for compatibility with existing satellite navigation systems;
12. Stresses, however, the usefulness of the GALILEO programme in ensuring the civil independence of the European Union with regard to satellite navigation and its applications, particularly as regards the system's safety and reliability;
13. Urges the Commission to present a financial statement which is based on realistic funding estimates; reminds that the budgetary authority should have a clear picture on how the project will be financed before it can take a decision on the expenditure that will be covered from the general budget;
14. Considers that the Parliament should demand prior consultation of the budgetary authority in case the expenditure to be financed from the general budget was to be revised. This would ensure that no restrictions are placed on other activities financed under heading 3;
15. Stresses the need to intensify contacts and cooperation at international level and to ensure that the European Union’s interests in this area are protected and the next steps in the realisation of the programme carried out in close cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA);
16. Underlines the European dimension of GALILEO, whereby candidate countries should be allowed to participate in all phases of the project; stresses the importance of close cooperation with the United States and Russia so as to ensure the interoperability and compatibility of GALILEO, GPS and GLONASS;
17.Calls on the Commission to continue to engage in intensive negotiations with potential international partners with a view to joint development and funding of GALILEO and,
RR\446386EN.doc 7/31 PE 301.798
EN later, paid use of it;
18. Requests that the programme be implemented throughout in a transparent manner, particularly as regards decision-making;
19. Stresses the need to make the projects’ eligibility for funding under the sixth research framework programme dependent, inter alia, on compatibility with GALILEO, thus encouraging the development of applications of GALILEO;
20. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to undertake a wide-ranging analysis of the contribution the GALILEO programme could make to progress in the field of European research when drawing up the future sixth framework programme of research and technological development;
21. Stresses the need to gear the transport policies of applicant countries at an early stage to the telematic innovations which GALILEO will make possible;
22. Calls on the Commission to work in the development phase towards a system architecture for GALILEO which uses effective coding procedures that will prevent centralisation of client data, allow public and private players data access only in forms that are compatible with the EU charter of fundamental rights, and place general data protection and protection of individual privacy at the centre of the system;
23. Stresses that the European Union has a vital interest in implementing GALILEO as a civilian infrastructure in such a way that unauthorised European and/or non-European signal reconnaissance services cannot gain access to user data;
24. Welcomes the participation of the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries in GALILEO;
25. Calls on the Commission to keep not only the Council, but also the European Parliament, informed of the bilateral talks and their outcome, and to proceed in a transparent way in future;
26. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up their preparations for the next World Radio Conference, in 2003, thus definitively securing GALILEO’s frequency needs; 27. Calls on the Commission to move forward research in the components, operation and application areas; 28. Points out that it is vital to develop the use of space for purposes related to the general interest and public service; 29. Considers that the GALILEO project should be developed taking into account the need to protect and safeguard the environment, so as to protect the lives of citizens and natural resources, and ensure early detection and even prevention of natural or man-made disasters; 30. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Member State Parliaments and the ESA.
PE 301.798 8/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
Until well into the first half of the twentieth century space was an insuperable barrier for mankind. In the past forty years, however, an enormous change has taken place. Since the first satellite, ‘Sputnik’, was sent into the earth’s orbit on 4 October 1957, technology in this area has developed enormously. Today space is an area of significant technological innovation in science and research, which has an impact not least on international standing.
Europe has developed scientific and technological competence in this area, as well as a competitive industry, which in the Ariane launcher, for example, has developed a commercially successful project, which supplies just under 50% of the market in launchers. The example of Ariane shows, in addition, what positive effects an independent European sectoral modernisation policy can have on employment, industrial and economic development and the international standing of the European Union.
Developments are also clearly visible in the area of satellite technology and have applications in everyday life. These include satellite communications services and satellite TV, as well as the possibility of worldwide weather forecasts thanks to satellite systems. But the potential is not yet exhausted by any stretch of the imagination. The possible applications and the related markets lie in a multitude of possible areas, ranging from transport, medicine, law enforcement, geodesy and financial transactions to customs and excise, agriculture and fisheries. A marked increase in uses and applications, and the resulting commercial profits, can therefore be expected in the years to come.
General remarks
Satellite radio navigation is a leading-edge technology. Extremely accurate time signals are transmitted by satellites in space, enabling the user of a receiver to pick up signals transmitted by several satellites and thereby to determine not only the exact time but also his own position, regardless of weather conditions.
This technology is currently dominated by the United States with its GPS system and by Russia with its Glonass system. In these countries the satellite systems are designed and controlled by the military, with the aim of accurate determining the position of military units, equipment or targets. They are financed and run by the military. The Russian system has the disadvantage of limited coverage, attributable to the deficient functionality of the Russian space architecture, i.e. the small number of available satellites. However, these networks can also be used for non-military purposes, although with negative implications as regards guaranteed availability and accuracy. In the past there have been several instances of
RR\446386EN.doc 9/31 PE 301.798
EN unannounced interruptions in data transferral1 and changes to selective availability,2 to the disadvantage of civilian users. Under the influence of Europe’s efforts to develop its own satellite navigation system, on 1 May 2000 the United States unexpectedly improved the accuracy of the GPS by switching off selective availability.3 But there is no guarantee that this situation will last. A further aspect is the absence of a legal framework for civilian use of the systems, which do not come with sufficient guarantees. The system operators take no responsibility whatever for the use of GPSs by non-military users ‘at their own risk’. It is difficult to license these militarily controlled systems for areas in which safety is an issue, such as civil aviation. These problem areas for applications should be reduced with the start of the second generation of GPSs (GPS II)4 by the addition of a signal for civil users. In the view of your rapporteur, however, there are no signs that the future US system (GPS II) will offer possibilities of use which meet with the EU’s demands for precision, reliability and safety.
Despite these disadvantages, GPS-based remote radio navigation is used successfully in the EU Member States and throughout the world, and applied in an ever-widening range of applications. GPS receivers, with the help of which positions can be plotted on land and sea, are generally available on the market at moderate prices. So far, reception of the necessary GPS signals is free of charge to the user. It should be pointed out again here that GPS guarantees neither accuracy, constant availability, nor lastingly free access to the service. These considerations may seem negligible to the private user, but for commercial users such as air traffic control services safety aspects would rule out any possibility of reliable use.
Another aspect is the possibility of using GALILEO to combat the USA’s current monopoly. GPS at present enjoys a quasi-monopoly in the field of satellite navigation. The resulting absence of competition means that optimal service cannot be provided for private users, neither can free reception be guaranteed in the long term.
For these reasons the European Union is planning to develop a system which it would control, and which would meet the EU’s requirements as regards precision, reliability and safety.5 The European Parliament expressed its support for the European satellite navigation project in its resolution of 13 January 1999.6
1 The information relating to these changes in GPS signals is classified, but the rapporteur is aware of some concrete examples. In the event of the ‘zero option’, i.e. a decision not to develop GALILEO, the possible damage to the European economy resulting from a 48-hour close-down of GPS in 2015 is estimated at €1 billion. 2 ‘Selective availability’ designates a system which gives the GPS position data a higher margin of error at the level of the receiver, i.e. artificially raises the level of inaccuracy. Position data accuracy can be affected by as much as 100 metres. The reason for the introduction of ‘selective availability’ was the American military’s fear of use by enemy forces. 3 This coincided with the official opening of the GALILEO Programme Office on 4 May 2000 in Brussels and the GNSS-2000 Conference in Edinburgh. 4 GPS II is due to be installed in 2005 and operational in 2008. 5 Council resolution of 19 December 1994 on the European contribution to the development of a Global Navigation Satellite System (OJ C 379, 31.12.1994); Commission communication to the Council and European Parliament ‘Towards a Trans-European Positioning and Navigation Network: including A European Strategy for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)’ (COM(1998) 29). 6 A4-0413/1998 (OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 73).
PE 301.798 10/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN Acting on the instructions of the Council of Transport Ministers of March 1998, on 10 February 1999 the Commission published a communication on GALILEO,1 in which it presented the idea of an independent European programme of satellite radio navigation which would be fully compatible with the American GPS. One of the main points was that Europe would have its own control over systems on which safe land, sea and air transport would in future increasingly depend. Four phases were proposed for its implementation: • definition phase (2000) • development and validation (2001-2005) • deployment (2006-2007) • operation (from 2008)
In its resolution of 19 July 1999 the Council rightly pointed out that the development of a European satellite navigation system would lead to greater independence in this high- technology sector and would give a boost to the European industry and to service providers. It called on the Commission to present a cost-benefit analysis and to set out the conditions for the planned public-private partnership (PPP) in this framework. The Council set the objective of largely private funding in the framework of the PPP, pointing to the central importance of the private interest in development and funding for decisions about the later phases of the project. In order to make decisions about further development, the Council asked the Commission for a report on the definition phase by the end of 2000.
At the European Council summits in Cologne in 1999 and in Feira and Nice in 2000 the strategic importance of GALILEO was emphasised, as well as the need for a decision on the continuation of the programme after the end of the definition phase in December 2000. The need for largely private backing of the system was again stressed.
As mentioned earlier, satellite navigation systems are high-technology products. Technological knowledge will be gained in the course of their development and deployment, helping to boost the technological potential of Europe as a location. Europe’s high-technology capabilities will be developed through GALILEO and its global competitive position on future markets strengthened. In the 21st century it is more important than ever to improve and secure the EU’s competitive position.
Alongside GALILEO’s technological relevance, its economic strategy significance for the European Union must be stressed. Europe’s gaining access as a qualified player to a worldwide growth market will mean that jobs can be created for highly qualified workers. According to forecasts, the global market volume for services and receivers will amount to about €40 billion by 2005. At the moment the market share of the European industry in satellite navigation terminals amounts to 15% in Europe, and only 5% worldwide. Installation of the space and ground segments for GALILEO will provide about 20 000 jobs, and operation will later provide about 2000. About 100 000 jobs will be created by 2008 in receivers and services.
1 Commission communication ‘Galileo - Involving Europe in a New Generation of Satellite Navigation Services’ (COM(1999) 54).
RR\446386EN.doc 11/31 PE 301.798
EN The transport industry and GALILEO
The transport industry is one of the main driving forces behind the European satellite navigation system GALILEO. Transport is an area where users can gain enormous benefits from precise information on location and speed. In its resolution of 19 July 1999 the Council stressed the importance of satellite positioning and navigation as a key element in the development of an infrastructure which would cover all modes of transport. This applies to all areas of land, sea and air transport.
Positive aspects which should be noted are the ability to use the existing infrastructure more effectively with the help of satellite navigation, to promote intermodality, to raise levels of safety, to reduce environmental pollution and to create an integrated overall system in Europe. The last point in particular is of crucial importance to the single market, inter alia from the point of view of sustainable development of the transport sector.
(a) Air traffic management
As a result of the considerable growth in aviation movement, airspace and airports are becoming increasingly congested. Despite numerous improvements, no satisfactory management method has been achieved capable of meeting the challenges of the coming decades. In this situation, GALILEO is an important option as a means of increasing the efficiency of air traffic management. Greater precision means that airspace can be used more efficiently, thus reducing delays and, in consequence, reducing fuel consumption and emissions of harmful substances. In the area of aviation in particular, however, which takes place in a three-dimensional setting and at high speeds, special heed must be paid to safety requirements. These include ensuring integrity, i.e. a knowledge of the quality of the signal used, as well as guaranteed reliability.
(b) Sea transport management
The excessively high volume of traffic and the high risks to shipping in European waters make tighter controls a necessity. Recent disasters such as the wrecks of the oil tanker Erika, the chemical tanker Ievoli Sun and the oil tanker Baltic Carrier prove that there is a need for positioning and communication via satellite navigation systems if safety requirements at sea are to be met. Under the two Erika packages on maritime safety1 it is planned to monitor shipping in European waters more closely. GALILEO offers the necessary potential for measures in this area.
(c) Inland transport
High growth rates in the coming years are forecast for inland transport,2 the principal mode of transport for goods and persons in the modern European economy. None of the existing
1 COM(2000) 142 of 21 March 2000 and COM(2000) 802 of 6 December 2000. 2 The study on “The Future of Mobility” commissioned by the Austrian Automobile and Touring Club, for example, estimates the rise in individual automobile use between 1997 and 2010 at 20%, and at as much as 40% by the year 2030. Road transport will rise by 60% in the next 30 years. In addition, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculates that the total number of automobiles in Europe will rise by 50% by the year 2020.
PE 301.798 12/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN infrastructures is capable of managing this growth unaided. The aim of a sustainable transport policy in Europe must therefore be to control the traffic. This can only be done with the aid of up-to-the-minute, reliable information about traffic flows. Automatic reporting of position and speed of vehicles using GALILEO in conjunction with appropriate communications systems (e.g. GSM, UMTS) would prevent congestion. This would have the further positive effects of improving traffic safety, and reducing journey times, fuel consumption and toxic emissions (‘social’ advantages).
GALILEO also opens up the possibility of automatic payment of tolls without stopping at tollgates, as well as fleet management potential for businesses.
(d) Search and rescue
GALILEO also makes it possible to provide a modern land and sea search and rescue service. The existing COSPAS-SARSAT system provides only restricted cover and gives imperfect positioning, as well as frequent false alarms. GALILEO could significantly improve the performance of this system in a number of ways. It gives worldwide coverage, rapid transmissions and positioning which is accurate to the nearest metre. This enables the rescue services to launch search and rescue operations with speed and efficiency.
Content of the Commission communication: the definition phase
The definition phase, which was allocated a budget of €80 million, began with the Council decision of 19 July 1999 and ended in December 2000. Half of the budget came from Community sources, the other half was provided by the European Space Agency (ESA). The aim of the definition phase was to obtain exhaustive opinions as to the feasibility, architecture, performance, structure, reliability, monitoring and cost of the system, while also involving the development and operational phases. To find solutions to technical problems, a number of studies were carried out and project groups set up.1 In addition, working parties were set up to assist in the definition of GALILEO’s architecture and its funding.2
In its communication the Commission confirms the strategic and economic benefits of the programme and proposes to the Transport Ministers that it launch the next phase. On the basis of the three categories of services and applications3 the Commission names some essential conditions for GALILEO’s successful continuation:
• deployment of a constellation of EU satellites. This component of the system architecture is a sine qua non for the European Union’s independence in the area of satellite
1 GEMINUS (definition of services), GALA (reconciling system architecture and user needs), INTEG (incorporation of EGNOS in GALILEO), SAGA (definition of standards), GalileoSat (definition of space segment and ground segment). 2 Private Public Partnership Task Force, Frequency Task Force, Negotiating Committee, System Security Board. 3 General services (positioning, navigation and dating services with the possibility of free use; these include mobile telephony applications, road navigation, traffic information), commercial service (fee-paying, for professional users in the areas of surveying, sea and vehicle fleet management, toll collection), public service (fee-paying, for professional users who are highly dependent on precision, signal quality and signal transmission reliability such as air traffic control, airlines, railway companies, road traffic controllers, provision of special equipment to receive higher-quality signals).
RR\446386EN.doc 13/31 PE 301.798
EN navigation. The space segment consists of a constellation of 30 medium earth orbit satellites.1 The ground segment consists of the appropriate control centres and communication equipment. • securing financing by the end of the deployment phase in 2007. According to the results of the cost-benefit analysis,2 GALILEO will be profitable and attractive, so that no public funding will be necessary after 2007. For the development and validation phase (2001- 2005) financing from public funds is needed (€1.13 billion). Half of this sum has already been made available by the Community budget and half from the ESA budget. In the deployment phase (2006-2007) costs of €2.1 billion for the manufacture and installation of the satellites and the ground infrastructure are expected. Of this sum, €1.5 billion is to be provided by private-sector investment. No public funding will be needed for the operational phase.
Source of funding million € million € million € Definition phase Development and Deployment phase (2000) validation phase (2006-2007) (2001-2005) estimated European Space 40 550 600 Agency European Union 42.5 580 Private sector 0 0 1 500 TOTAL 82.5 1 130 2 100
• creation of an appropriate legal and financial framework. This management structure must be created as soon as possible in order to secure the private funding requested. As of 2001 a management body, provisional initially, is to be set up. The permanent management body will then take over management of the systems and the funds. The final management structure will be decided on by the Transport Ministers Council in December 2001 after initial discussions in June.
Problem areas / points for discussion
(a) Military use
The question has been raised in a number of quarters as to whether and in what form military bodies should be involved in the development of GALILEO. It can be clearly established that the satellite navigation programme GALILEO is being developed by civilian organisations (the European Commission and the ESA) and run under civilian control. GALILEO will make many applications accessible to civilian users, in the public and private spheres, in the fields of transport, agriculture, fisheries, medicine, search and rescue and geodesy, for example. The basis for this will be the precision, reliability and safety of GALILEO. The European system is not designed for specifically military purposes. This means that GALILEO is not toughened to resist specific attacks, unlike GPS, for example, and has been developed for normal-strength signals. But GALILEO nevertheless offers protection against hostile action.
1 The research carried out during the definition phase showed that the best results are achieved for lower costs using medium earth orbit satellites at a height of approximately 23 000 km (MEO = medium earth orbit). 2 Commission Staff Working Paper, Cost benefit analysis results for GALILEO, 22 November 2000.
PE 301.798 14/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN Safety is a prerequisite for the system, with regard both to funding and to involvement of private companies. The system will incorporate the possibility of refusing service in crisis zones, and no misuse will be allowed.
GALILEO is a system for civilian use which can, in the context of its applications, also be used by military users - as it can by any other. ‘The sovereignty and safety of Europe will be in serious danger if the European navigation systems are removed from European control’.1 This will certainly be the case if GALILEO is not built. If need be, therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss safety and defence questions in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
(b) Financing and apportioning costs
The financial programming for the development and validation phase (2001-2005) calls for sums amounting to €1.13 billion, which are to be derived solely from public sources. The GALILEO programme is a Community programme and is an essential component in the Community transport policy, including the Trans-European Transport Networks. This calls for political commitment from the Community and justifies the financial commitment both in the completed definition phase and in the coming phases of the programme. The programme is to be implemented in the framework of the European Space Strategy, which was adopted jointly by the EU and the ESA, with the ESA assuming the role of the implementing agency.
The inclusion of the GALILEO programme in the ‘Trans-European Networks’ programme will make it possible in future years for the planned contribution of €550 million for the development and validation phase to be provided under budget line B5-700 ‘Financial support for projects of common interest in the trans-European transport network’. Additional resources to the value of €30 million for the development of applications and receivers will be provided from the fifth research framework programme.
It is planned that the European Space Agency (ESA) will release its contribution of €550 million on the occasion of the ministerial conference of November 2001, thus covering the financial needs for the development and validation phase. No further public funds will be needed.
For the deployment phase which will follow a total amount of €2.1 billion is provided for. Of this, the private sector will provide €1.5 billion and the public purse €600 million, although no firm commitments have yet been received from the private sector. In order to incorporate the private-sector contribution in the programme as rapidly as possible, a clear political signal is needed from the Transport Council, in the wake of which an appropriate management structure can be developed, just as this political will must be expressed in order to create the necessary framework conditions for a return of investment from the private sector. Any delay in taking this first step will undeniably produce delays in the whole programme. It is to be feared that, without a positive signal from the political side, the absence of political support and the inherent economic risk will dissuade industry from becoming further involved in the programme.
1 COM(98) 29, p. 5; this statement is reiterated in the resolution of the Transport Ministers Council of 5 April 2001.
RR\446386EN.doc 15/31 PE 301.798
EN
The agreement entered into by industry, at the instigation of the Commission, to make available €200 million at the beginning of the development phase will facilitate the continuation of the GALILEO project.1
Further reflection on the financial aspect should include alternative models such as PFI (Public Financing Initiative) which reduce the market risk, particularly in view of the fact that many potential investors and firms do not feel able to invest at this point, i.e. eight years before the system is ready and becomes operative.
With regard to the possible revenue flows from all GALILEO services, it should be noted that the results of studies relating to the modalities and implications of a possible receiver fee should be presented as soon as possible. The quality label referred to in the Commission communication also needs further investigation with regard to acceptance, appropriateness and returns. The possible revenue flows from commercial services (licence fee, PIN code, contributions from third countries) should be looked at in more detail from the point of view of the international negotiations.
(c) Management structure
A clear single administrative structure is an absolute precondition for the coordinated management of GALILEO in the development and validation phase (2001-2005), in the deployment and operational phase and for any plans to convince interested parties from the private sector of the institutional stability of the project and to draw up an overall plan, including a financing plan. A provisional management structure should be created as soon as possible, to administer the GALILEO project until the final management body is set up. The participation of the Commission in the form of the ‘GALILEO programme’ department will take care of general coordination, and the involvement of the ESA will provide technical solutions. The involvement of these two components on a partnership basis will guarantee the linear continuation of the programme. The successful preparatory work carried out by the Galileo Programme Office (GPO) should also be noted here. Participation by the GPO in the future implementation of the programme, not least from the viewpoint of a rapid involvement of the private sector as regards participation in funding and definition of services, is desirable.
The Commission will shortly be presenting proposals for the creation of a final structure. This final structure in the form of a single body which will manage all aspects of the programme,2 will enjoy a certain amount of legal and financial autonomy and be provided with an investment budget consisting of all the funds made available for the project. Financial backing from investors and companies operating along economic lines can only be expected when these institutional framework conditions have been established.3 Attempts to make a political decision dependent upon a prior involvement by industry do not appear appropriate for the development of the GALILEO system. Strict ongoing controls of expenditure, and supervision, must be built into the management structure from the outset.
1 Joint Declaration of Intent, signed on 15 March 2001 in Brussels. 2 This body will function, so to speak, as both architect and builder. 3 Cf. statements made by industry to this effect on the occasion of the hearing of industry organised by the Commission on 14 February 2001.
PE 301.798 16/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN (d) International cooperation
For a project with global coverage intensive international discussion and cooperation is essential. For GALILEO to be a success, interoperability with existing and planned systems (GPS, GPS II and GLONASS) must be ensured. In addition, compatibility is the only way to open new applications and to increase market interest in the areas in which the existence of two systems offers numerous advantages.1 International cooperation is also important in enabling the components of the ground segment to be set up and operated in selected areas of the world and in opening new markets in third countries. It is also advisable to coordinate frequency access at international level, as was successfully done, for example, at the World Radio Conference in Istanbul in May 2000. For the reasons already mentioned, early agreement with third countries is necessary for smooth, successful operation of the system. Some questions about this still remain unanswered at the moment. The first is the question of the state of negotiations with the United States on a framework agreement of principle. Did problems arise as a result of the delay in starting the development and validation phase due to the failure to reach agreement at the December 2000 Transport Ministers Council? Can the timetable for fixing the options for interoperability and frequency sharing with GPS be adhered to? What is the verdict on the continuing negotiations with other countries on possible participation? The Commission’s communication on completion of the definition phase does not mention cooperation with Japan as one of the potential main markets. Are political and technical contacts taking place with Japan, which was mentioned as a possible central partner in the Commission communication of 1998?
In view of the significance of international agreement for the success of GALILEO, the outcome of negotiations should be included in the Commission’s future annual reports to the Council and Parliament.
Further development of GALILEO
On the basis of the conclusions of the Nice European Council a decision on continuation of the project and initiation of the next phase (development and validation 2001-2005) was expected to be reached by the Transport Ministers Council of 20 December 2000. The Transport Ministers were unable to reach agreement, however. This is regrettable not only because of the resulting timetabling problems, but also with regard to international cooperation. It raised the hopes of certain parties with an interest in the European programme being dropped, to the detriment of Europe’s interests.
The resolutions of the Stockholm European Council of 24 March 2001 and the Transport Council of 5 April 2001 are to be welcomed, and give the expected political signal for GALILEO to continue.
1 Because of obstructed visibility in towns, the availability of the positioning system is limited to about 55% of the area. Use of two compatible satellite navigation systems could raise this to 95%.
RR\446386EN.doc 17/31 PE 301.798
EN
20 June 2001
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on GALILEO (COM(2000) 750 – C5-0110/2001 – 2001/2059 (COS))
Draftsman: Francesco Turchi
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Budgets appointed Francesco Turchi draftsman at its meeting of 25 April 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 20 June 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously with 2 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Terence Wynn, chairman; Reimer Böge and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, vice-chairmen; Francesco Turchi, draftsman; Ioannis Averoff, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Joan Colom i Naval, Carlos Costa Neves, Den Dover, Göran Färm, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Neena Gill, Catherine Guy-Quint, Jutta D. Haug, Anne Elisabet Jensen, Florence Kuntz, Albert Jan Maat (for Markus Ferber, pursuant to Rule 153(2)), John Joseph McCartin, Jan Mulder, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, Gérard Onesta, Giovanni Pittella, Bartho Pronk (for Jean-Louis Bourlanges), Paul Rübig (for James E.M. Elles), Heide Rühle, Esko Olavi Seppänen (for Chantal Cauquil), Per Stenmarck, Jeffrey William Titford, Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski, Ralf Walter and Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo.
PE 301.798 18/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN SHORT JUSTIFICATION
1. Background
In its conclusions of 23-24 March 2001, the Stockholm European Council stressed the "importance of launching the GALILEO satellite navigation project without delay".1
The Commission has now presented a Communication, in which it confirms the strategic importance and economic attractions of the GALILEO project and proposes that it be continued beyond 2001.
There are currently two satellite navigation networks in the world, one American (GPS) and the other Russian (GLONASS). Both have been designed to determine the position of military objectives, vehicles or units, with great accuracy. These networks can be used for civil purposes, but they have several drawbacks:
• no guarantee or liability cover is provided by their operator; • reliability is uncertain; users are not informed immediately of errors that may occur, and transmission is sometimes unreliable; • the networks have only moderate precision for applications which require rapid positioning.
It is for this reason that the EU plans to develop through the GALILEO project a system, which will enable each individual, by way of a small, cheap individual receiver, to know his or her position to within a few metres, as compared with tens of metres currently on offer from GPS.
According to the Commission, GALILEO is a civil programme under civil control. The project will launch a series of satellites, which will be placed in orbit around 20,000 km and monitored by a network of ground control stations, in order to provide world coverage.
Unlike existing systems, GALILEO will provide the precision needed for these applications and offer guarantees and liability cover that are currently lacking, within a framework comprising three levels of service:
1. a basic service, free of charge, for applications intended for the public at large, in particular leisure activities (i.e. cycling, walking or at sea); 2. a subscription service, with restricted access, for commercial and professional applications needing superior performance levels and guarantee of service; 3. a very restricted, high-level subscription service for applications which must not suffer any interruption or disturbance for reasons of security.
Absolute dependability is critical: assurance of continuity of service and accuracy and protection against unauthorised interference with the system. According to the Commission, GALILEO will allow Europe to acquire the technological independence it seeks in this field, as it has done with Ariane and Airbus.
1 See paragraph 42 of Stockholm European Council conclusions, 23-24 March 2001.
RR\446386EN.doc 19/31 PE 301.798
EN
2. Financial aspects
The table below sets out the private and public contributions to the three phases and, as regards the latter’s contributions, a breakdown between those made by the European Union and those by the European Space Agency:
€ Million € Million € Million Sources of funding Definition phase Development and Deployment validation phase phase (estimated) European Space Agency 40 550 European Union 42.5 580 + pm 600 of which: (EU and Trans-European transport 550 European Space networks Agency) 5th Framework research programme 30 Future research actions pm
Private sector 0 0 1 500 TOTAL 82.5 1 130 + pm 2 100
The total cost of developing GALILEO, until 2007, is expected to be as follows:
Cost in € million Development and Deployment Total 2001- (2000) validation phase phase 2007
Management & engineering 160 130 290 Satellites 240 660 900 Launching 80 660 740 Ground sector: Global Regional 480 380 860 Local
Operations 70 210 280 Technology support 70 60 130 programme GALILEO - Illustrative 11001 2100 3200 estimate Incorporation of EGNOS 50 Total cost 3250
1 This does not include support for the deployment of local components or for the development of applications and receivers which will require an additional €150 million.
PE 301.798 20/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN
2.1. The development and validation phase (2001 – 2005)
According to the Commission’s financial estimates, the cost during this period will be roughly €1.1 billion. That amount will be provided entirely by public funding (Community budget and that of the European Space Agency).
Community funding
GALILEO will receive funds already earmarked in the existing financial forecasts (essentially the trans-European networks and the 5th framework research programme and possibly future research actions, which are subject to decisions of the Council and the European Parliament).
Regarding the trans-European networks (TENs), the amount foreseen for the GALILEO project for the years ahead is roughly €550 million under budget line B5-700. This would enable 50% of the cost of the design stage, including technical support, to be covered.
The 5th framework research programme (FP5) will continue to set aside funds for the GALILEO Programme’s development and validation stage. Any contribution from future research actions is subject to its being adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. These funds (FP5 and future research actions) will cover support for the development of applications and receivers not forming part of the architecture as such, but whose specification will be necessary when private partners are to be identified.
The level of Community funding is critical since it will determine whether political control can be maintained of the following phase of the programme. It will also help to guard against any drawback resulting from the rules of geographic return provided for by the Convention establishing the European Space Agency.
The European Space Agency’s contribution
The European Space Agency has asked the Member States to subscribe €550 million for the validation phase once the political decision to continue with the programme has been taken.
2.2. The deployment phase (2006-2007)
Beyond the current financial perspective, the origin and amount of the Community’s contribution and that of the European Space Agency still need to be determined during the validation phase.
According to the Commission, the costs of €2.1 billion would be broken down to €1.5 billion borne by the private sector and €0.6 billion borne by the public sector.
2.3. The operational phase (from 2008 onwards)
As soon as possible during the validation phase, the Commission intends to propose that a fund be set up to receive the public contributions while being open to private investment and, where appropriate, an input from non-member states. This fund should give it legal
RR\446386EN.doc 21/31 PE 301.798
EN personality and funding rules that are suitable for approval by the contributing parties.
According to the Commission, no public funding in the form of subsidies will be necessary after the deployment phase. The necessary funds will be acquired from public-private partnership and via the new revenue flows.
3. Financial and legislative remarks
The Commission seems convinced of the economic and social benefits of GALILEO. In a working paper produced by its own services in November 2000,1 the Commission estimates that the benefits of GALILEO will amount to €74 billion compared to the €6 billion invested over 20 years.2 Furthermore, it calculates that the increase in employment (expressed in man- years) will amount to an average of 3,800 per year during the design and development phase, 19,000 per year during the deployment phase, 4,200 per year during the operating phase, and another 5,200 per year until 2020.
Against this background, it is peculiar that the project has had difficulties to attract investments from the private sector. At a meeting of EU transport ministers in April 2001, it became clear that the Union had major problems to find the extra €1.5 billion required from private sources for the deployment phase (2006-2007) of GALILEO. According to press articles,3 major European industry leaders rejected the Commission’s call for private investments, whereby the feasibility of the entire project was put into question. At a public hearing organised by the Commission on 14 February, the firms warned that they would invest funds in the project only on condition that the infrastructure was first provided by the public sector.
On the other hand, the Commission states that when it issued a call for an expression of interest in order to establish the conditions needed in order to set up a public-private partnership, several European industrial consortia responded to this, without reference to any further problems.
The rapporteur supports in principle the Commission's approach but expresses his doubts on the economic feasibility of the project. The fact that nearly half of the financial package − which covers the first three phases of GALILEO until 2007 − remains open should not be taken lightly. Before taking any decisions on the overall package, the budgetary authority should have an idea where the remaining funds are to be found. The project cannot be based on uncertain financial plans, such as public-private partnerships, which may not materialise to the extent foreseen by the Commission. Furthermore, the project management structure remains unclear. The rapporteur considers that project management and the participation of the private sector should be put in the centre of the future debate on GALILEO.
At the current stage, GALILEO does not comply with the statement on financial programming, which was adopted by the three institutions on 20 July 2000. According to this statement, “the budgetary authority must have accurate information about the financial
1 “Cost benefit analysis results of GALILEO.” Commission staff working paper, SEC(2000)2140. 2 This amount is made up of €3.25 billion in 2001-2007 and €220 million per year thereafter. 3 “GALILEO space project brought down to earth.” European Voice, 8-14 March 2001.
PE 301.798 22/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN consequences of each new proposal presented by the Commission, in order to be able to assess the impact of the proposal on the ceilings of the financial perspective (…)”.
The rapporteur warns that GALILEO may have a much bigger impact on the general budget than initially expected. If GALILEO fails to attract investments from the private sector, the required €1.5 billion would have to be financed from the general budget, with direct implications on other activities financed under heading 3, as well as the margin left under the financial perspective.
The rapporteur considers that the budgetary authority should have a clear picture of GALILEO’s source of funding before it can commit appropriations to the project. The identification of the sources and amounts of private funding should be concurrent with the identification of public funding. Financing needs should be met by 2002.
According to paragraph 13 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, “no act adopted under the co- decision procedure by the European Parliament and the Council nor any act adopted by the Council which involves exceeding the appropriations available in the budget or the allocations available in the financial perspective in accordance with paragraph 11 may be implemented in financial terms until the budget has been amended and, if necessary, the financial perspective has been appropriately revised in accordance with the relevant procedure for each of these cases.”1
Therefore, the Parliament should demand prior consultation of the budgetary authority in case the expenditure to be financed from the general budget was to be revised. This would ensure that no restrictions are placed on other activities financed under heading 3 if GALILEO does not attract the investments foreseen by the Commission.
One way to counterbalance the lack of private investments would be to study the possibility of using national funds to finance some of the elements of GALILEO which could be eventually used for military purposes in the framework of CFSP. In a situation of crisis, the European Union should have the possibility to use the satellite navigation services provided by GALILEO without having to rely on other satellite systems (GPS and GLONASS) operated by the United States and Russia.
The rapporteur notes that the Commission has provided very little information on the organisation, administration, staff and financing of the entity, which will be in charge of the management of the project. Furthermore, it is unclear whether candidate countries will be allowed to participate in all phases of GALILEO. The rapporteur considers that this would be crucial if the Community is to ensure the European dimension of the project.
Finally, the rapporteur stresses the importance of close cooperation with the United States and Russia so as to ensure the interoperability and compatibility of GALILEO, GPS and GLONASS. This would save funds and efforts while offering a better and more secure service at world level.
1 Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, pages 1-22.
RR\446386EN.doc 23/31 PE 301.798
EN CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
The Committee on Budgets
1. Expresses its concern on the economic feasibility of the GALILEO project. The fact that the Commission has not yet the certitude of investments from the private sector increases the financial uncertainties related to the project.
2. Stresses the need to put project management and the participation of the private sector in the centre of the debate on GALILEO; underlines that the identification of the sources and amounts of private funding should be concurrent with the identification of public funding, and that financing needs should be met by 2002.
3. Urges the Commission to present a financial statement which is based on realistic funding estimates; reminds that the budgetary authority should have a clear picture on how the project will be financed before it can take a decision on the expenditure that will be covered from the general budget.
4. Considers that the Parliament should demand prior consultation of the budgetary authority in case the expenditure to be financed from the general budget was to be revised. This would ensure that no restrictions are placed on other activities financed under heading 3.
5. Asks the Commission to look into the possibilities of using part of GALILEO for military purposes and, in this context, of co-financing the project from national budgets.
6. Calls on the Commission to provide further information on the organisation, administration, staff and funding of the entity, which will be in charge of the management of the project.
7. Underlines the European dimension of GALILEO, whereby candidate countries should be allowed to participate in all phases of the project; stresses the importance of close cooperation with the United States and Russia so as to ensure the interoperability and compatibility of GALILEO, GPS and GLONASS.
PE 301.798 24/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN
26 June 2001
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, EXTERNAL TRADE, RESEARCH AND ENERGY
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council on GALILEO
(COM(2000) 750 – C5-0110/2001 – 2001/2059 (COS))
Draftsman: Yves Piétrasanta
(*) Hughes procedure (with the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism)
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy appointed Yves Piétrasanta draftsman at its meeting of 21 March 2001.
At the sitting of 5 April the President announced that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which had been asked for its opinion, would be associated with the drawing-up of the report under the ‘Hughes procedure’.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 25 April, 29 May and 20 June 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 45 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.
Before the beginning of the vote, Mr. Christian Foldberg Rovsing announced that he had interests in this field and consequently would not take part in it.
The following were present for the vote: Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza, chairman; Renato Brunetta and Peter Michael Mombaur, vice-chairmen; Yves Piétrasanta (draftsman); Konstantinos Alyssandrakis, Ward Beysen (for Astrid Thors), Guido Bodrato, Massimo Carraro, Gérard Caudron, Giles Bryan Chichester, Nicholas Clegg, Dorette Corbey (for Harlem Désir), Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, Francesco Fiori (for Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca), Christos Folias, Neena Gill (for Glyn Ford), Norbert Glante, Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman (for Marjo Matikainen-Kallström), Michel Hansenne, Hans Karlsson, Bashir Khanbhai (for Konrad K. Schwaiger), Helmut Kuhne (for Rolf Linkohr), Werner Langen, Caroline Lucas, Eryl Margaret McNally, Nelly Maes, Erika Mann, Elizabeth Montfort, Angelika Niebler,
RR\446386EN.doc 25/31 PE 301.798
EN Giuseppe Nisticò (for Roger Helmer), Reino Paasilinna, Elly Plooij-van Gorsel, John Purvis, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Bernhard Rapkay (for François Zimeray), Imelda Mary Read, Mechtild Rothe, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Paul Rübig, Ilka Schröder, Esko Olavi Seppänen, Helle Thorning-Schmidt (for Myrsini Zorba), Claude Turmes (for Nuala Ahern), W.G. van Velzen, Anders Wijkman and Olga Zrihen Zaari.
PE 301.798 26/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The GALILEO satellite navigation programme enables the user of a receiver to pick up signals transmitted by several satellites and thereby determine his position at any given moment with a high degree of accuracy. This technology exists in the United States (GPS system) and in Russia (GLONASS system). It is currently financed and controlled by the military authorities in these two countries. The quality and continuity of the civilian use of this technology depend on these two countries, who could cut off or degrade the signal at any time. It is possible for any individual to obtain for a very modest outlay a GPS receiver enabling him to pinpoint his position on the road, at sea or in the mountains, albeit without any guarantee of accuracy or continuity of service. The GALILEO programme will be managed and controlled by civilians. The plan is for it to be developed in four phases: a definition phase in 2000, a development and validation phase up to 2005, a deployment phase up to 2007 and an operational phase thereafter.
The European Commissioner responsible for this matter, Loyola De Palacio, has been quick to stress that, by signing a participation agreement, the industry had done the right thing and was displaying its desire to see this project rapidly take shape, and that Europeans should show the ambition and daring to embark on this adventure. She also quite rightly pointed out that GALILEO offered a potential market of € 9 billion per year and that the programme ought to create 140 000 jobs.
The present communication sets out the results of the definition phase for the GALILEO programme undertaken in cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA). It confirms the strategic and economic importance of the programme and proposes that the Transport Council of 20 December 2000 continue the GALILEO programme beyond 2001. The successful implementation of GALILEO depends on three conditions.
First, a constellation of European Union satellites must be deployed, so as to guarantee independence in the field of satellite radio navigation. It is planned to have 30 satellites orbiting the Earth at an altitude of around 23 000 km.
Provision must then be made for adequate funding up to the year 2007. On the basis of cost/benefit studies, the Commission believes that GALILEO is viable and sufficiently attractive to obviate the need for any further public funding in the form of subsidies from 2007. As at 22 March 2001, the definition phase was nearing completion and funding of € 80 million had already been provided. For the development and validation phase (2001- 2005), the communication anticipated that funding in the form of public subsidies was required (€ 1.1bn). At present, public funding has already been planned in equal measure from the EU and ESA budgets. On 22 March 2001, on the eve of the Stockholm European Council, the Commission invited industrialists in the relevant sectors (service providers, operators, component and space systems manufacturers) to commit themselves financially right from the beginning of the GALILEO development phase. A memorandum of understanding was therefore signed, providing for a financial commitment by the private sector of € 200m for the period 2001-2005. For the deployment phase (2006-2007) the Commission anticipates a funding requirement of € 2.1bn. This phase involves the manufacture and launch of satellites and the establishment of the ground-based infrastructure network, requiring private sector investment of some € 1.5 billion. With this in view, the Commission communication
RR\446386EN.doc 27/31 PE 301.798
EN envisaged setting up a public-private partnership from the outset of the development and validation phase.
Lastly, the setting up of an appropriate legal and financial framework is vital. The communication wanted to see this done ‘as soon as possible’, so as to attract the private investment necessary for the operation of GALILEO. This legal framework involves three stages. The first involves the setting up by 2001 of a single management structure, for the provisional coordination of the GALILEO project, involving the Commission and ESA. This structure would work under the auspices of a single assembly of representatives of programme contributors. The second stage would be based on the rapid creation of a single final management structure, with an investment budget combining all the funds earmarked for the project. The third stage involves assigning to this structure control over EGNOS, the forerunner of GALILEO (EGNOS is a satellite radio navigation system that relies on the American GPS and the Russian GLONASS systems and ensures their integrity. It warns the user over a very short time span of any malfunction that might affect the quality of the signal retransmitted by geostationary satellites).
Council position and further developments
0n 20 and 21 December, under the French Presidency, the Transport Council adopted conclusions confirming that deployment of the EU’s own constellation of satellites was a political priority. The French Presidency wanted the April 2001 Council to decide on the final transition to the development and validation phase of GALILEO. It proposed that the Commission and Member States should take extra measures to set up an interim management structure until a final structure could be established, with the emphasis on cooperation between the public and private sectors. The definition of the future services needed for the sound functioning of the programme, on the basis of the three levels of service proposed by the Commission, should be continued. In March 2001, the Commission signed a memorandum with the operators concerned defining their contribution to the GALILEO development phase. The Stockholm European Council of 23 March expressed its political support for the continuation of the GALILEO programme in future years.
The Transport Council of 4 and 5 April 2001 adopted a resolution on GALILEO, in which it agreed that the system should be operational by 2008 at the latest. It expressed its support for the funding of €100m for 2001 and undertook to take a decision on the funding of €450m at the Council meeting in December 2001. It stressed the need for the project to be administered by the Commission and the ESA and called on the Commission, in cooperation with the ESA, to make a proposal concerning the statutes, on which the Council would give its views in December 2001, and called for a provisional management structure to be established by the Commission and the ESA. With regard to the public/private partnership, it called on the Commission to draw up a declaration on the project’s objectives, in cooperation with the ESA, taking account of the cost/benefit analysis. The Commission should report to the Council in June 2001 and issue an invitation to tender as soon as possible setting out the prospects for all phases of the project to enable the private sector to build up a long-term commitment, with a view to defining the public and commercial services to be provided by GALILEO. The Council meeting in June 2001 will examine the preliminary definition of service, as a vital element of the invitations to tender. The Transport Council requests that a preliminary definition regarding the system’s level of security be submitted to it by the
PE 301.798 28/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN beginning of 2002 and that the project should take account of the need to respect privacy and individual freedoms. It also requests that a report should be submitted to it annually (beginning in December 2001) on the progress made by the programme.
Rapporteur's position
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission communication and the continuation of the GALILEO project. Nevertheless, he has a number of concerns regarding its implementation. Emphasis should be placed first of all on the question of the programme's funding. The overall amount provided for by the Commission is very high, at least € 3 billion. However, during implementation of the project there is a danger that this sum could increase. The scale of the programme is vast, as are its financial implications. The question arises as to who can guarantee that this sum will actually constitute a ceiling. Your rapporteur is therefore requesting that a specific and detailed analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the programme be drawn up and that a global financial strategy be defined more accurately in advance so as to avoid any danger that programme costs will escalate. This analysis should also examine what private funding will actually be provided for the programme. In the absence of a definite commitment on the part of the project operators concerned, there will be no guarantee from the Member States as regards an accurate and stable definition of the amount of public funding that will be allocated to GALIEO. In fact, the road and freight transport sectors are in favour of co-funding, but the air, rail and maritime transport sectors are less interested, since they already have their own commercial systems.
Your rapporteur would also stress the need for the implementation of GALILEO to comply with certain criteria, such as the use of the system solely for peaceful and civilian purposes, respect for privacy and transparency in the programme's management. With this in view, he would propose that an ethics committee be set up with the participation of independent experts, senior figures and representatives of the European Parliament. The committee would be an advisory one which would ensure respect for these three conditions and would support the Commission and the ESA in implementing their joint management of the programme.
Your rapporteur would also stress the contribution that implementation of the programme will make to the progress of research in Europe and calls on the Commission and Member States to take this into account when drawing up the sixth framework programme of research and technological development.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy invites the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, which is the committee responsible, to include the following points in its motion for a resolution:
1. Stresses the importance of the budgetary aspect of the GALILEO programme and points out that the already high level of funding initially scheduled for the programme (€ 3 billion) is likely to rise still further, in view of the nature of the programme and the way it is likely to develop;
2. Stresses, however, the usefulness of the GALILEO programme in ensuring the civil
RR\446386EN.doc 29/31 PE 301.798
EN independence of the European Union with regard to satellite navigation and its applications, particularly as regards the system's safety and reliability;
3. Stresses, furthermore, the technical and industrial importance of GALILEO in maintaining the European space and telecommunication industries' high standards in terms both of skills and competitiveness;
4. Requests the Commission to undertake a more specific and more detailed cost/effectiveness analysis in order to assess the possibilities offered by the GALILEO project from the financial point of view, as well as the overall financial strategy for the GALILEO project, taking due account of its economic impact in terms of work generated directly and indirectly and its impact in terms of direct and indirect employment for European industries;
5. Hopes that this analysis will include a comparison between the alternative communications systems for air, rail and maritime transport, and traffic management and control;
6. Requests that after this analysis a list of the private industries prepared to make a financial commitment to the programme be included, together with details of their contributions;
7. Points out that if private investors do not commit themselves in sufficient numbers to funding the programme, the Member States will have to decide what to do about the funding shortfall for the project;
8. Requests that the structures established during the development of the programme should be used solely for civilian purposes and points out that it is vital to develop the use of space for purposes related to the general interest and public service;
9. Stresses that the GALILEO programme must not be applied in a way that will jeopardise the right to and the protection of privacy and that it must under no circumstances become a technology for the surveillance of citizens;
10. Requests that the programme be implemented throughout in a transparent manner, particularly as regards decision-making;
11. Recommends that an advisory ethics committee be set up to ensure respect for the requirements of transparency, the use of the technology solely for civilian purposes and respect for privacy, while assisting the Commission and the ESA in their decision- making duties;
12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to undertake a wide-ranging analysis of the contribution the GALILEO programme could make to progress in the field of European research when drawing up the future sixth framework programme of research and technological development;
13. Considers that the GALILEO project should be developed taking into account the
PE 301.798 30/31 RR\446386EN.doc
EN need to protect and safeguard the environment, so as to protect the lives of citizens and natural resources, and ensure early detection and even prevention of natural or man- made disasters.
RR\446386EN.doc 31/31 PE 301.798
EN