6 Amendments of Damien ABAD related to 2009/2226(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
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 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the inadequatefailure of the initial public-private partnership formula for funding for the GNSS programmes led in 2007 to a revision of the current MFF whichthe decision to pursue their implementation with financing exclusively from the Union budget; recalls that, in this context and given the lack of available resources in the current MFF, it was decided to increased the ceiling for Heading 1a by €2.4 billion for the period 2007-2013; points out that again in 2010 the Commission proposed an MFF revision to increase the ceiling for Heading 1a, owing to a shortage of funding for the ITER project; emphasises that such ad hoc, emergency solutions are likely to jeopardise the success and added value of strategic, large-scale EU projects and undermine the political momentum around them ; considers that sound, long- term solutions for their funding must be devised instead;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that Galileo isnot only is Galileo actually the first major EU- owned project and thatindustrial project but it also addresses a requirement that is in the public interest at EU level, thus justifying recourse to public financing; therefore supports the view that – in order to avoid uncertainties, reassure market players and bring ithe programme 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 balanceany re-evaluations should be underpinned by financing from other sources, including innovative types of financing;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the estimated figure (€1.9 billion) included in the mid-term review for the period after 2013 is purely indicative and might represented as being purely indicative; considers that the Commission should therefore sent a low estimate of the actual amount needed to complete the projectt out a medium-term and long-term financing strategy for the GNSS programmes post-2013 with a view to ensuring their funding at a level commensurate with what is at stake for the EU.