Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2012/2509(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document :

Texts tabled :

O-000325/2011 (B7-0027/2012)

Debates :

PV 16/02/2012 - 7
CRE 16/02/2012 - 7

Votes :

Texts adopted :


Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 16 February 2012 - Strasbourg OJ edition

7. Future of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) (debate)
Video of the speeches
PV
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Norbert Glante, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the future of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) (O-000325/2011) – (B7-0027/2012) (2012/2509(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, the question posed by Mr Glante concerning the European Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES), which is one of the flagship programmes of European Union space policy included in the Europe 2020 strategy, is important.

I will not reiterate all the information that GMES can provide, which is vital for the environment, the protection of biodiversity, the state of the oceans, understanding climate change, reacting to natural disasters, prevention and policy development. This information is necessary to enable all public authorities in the Member States, sometimes also the regions, to implement all these reparation, prevention or environmental protection policies.

GMES has demonstrated its effectiveness. My thoughts turn to the major disaster that struck the island of Haiti in January 2010. Satellite images provided by GMES enabled the European Union to provide all the international players and emergency services working on the ground with reference maps showing where the damage had occurred.

I say that because, before I became a Commissioner again, I had the opportunity to work in the area of civil protection on the idea supported by my colleague, Kristalina Georgieva, of a European organisation for a better civil protection response. In this proposal, I, personally, four years ago, imagined using satellite services to provide a more effective prevention and reparation response, as we were able to do during the major disaster in Haiti.

In addition, GMES data and services are also used for propagation simulations in the event of oil leaks, for example, from the Costa Concordia during that recent disaster.

In budgetary terms, honourable Members, what are we talking about? Since 1998, overall financing for GMES until 2013 by the European Union and the European Space Agency (ESA) amounted to more than EUR 3.2 billion for the design and initial implementation of the services and infrastructure.

After 2013, the continuation of this programme, which will include the deployment of observation infrastructure, as well as the operation and maintenance of the services, will require a budget of EUR 5.8 billion approximately for the period 2014-2020.

In a recent Euroconsult study on the observation of the Earth by satellite, we noted that, at global level, receipts of EUR 2.5 billion were generated in 2010 from data sales services, which means that these receipts are three times greater than 10 years ago. This is, honourable Members, a rapidly expanding market.

At the same time, a cost-benefit analysis carried out by the Commission found that the GMES programme should generate profits at least four times higher than investment costs for the period until 2030. GMES has not experienced any delays or cost overruns in the past and is not likely to do so in the future, given that it is based on a structure which, if necessary, enables the priorities of the content of the objectives of the different components to be redefined so as to stay within the planned costs.

The communication of June 2011 on the budget for Europe 2020 placed GMES outside the multiannual financial framework. In accordance with financial regulations, a legal act, that is to say, in this case a regulation, is no longer necessary, as there is no financial undertaking. The communication to the European Parliament and to the Council, which was adopted in November 2011, thus seemed best suited for opening a debate with the other institutions on how to guarantee the long-term success of GMES. This communication contains, in an annex, the elements that may be included in an international agreement between the Member States to replace the regulation that will expire at the end of 2013.

Ladies and gentlemen, GMES undoubtedly remains an important EU programme. The Commission was of the opinion that the costs of GMES could not be borne solely by the EU budget, considering the limits imposed in it. It is a way of ensuring the continuity of the programme while, at the same time, enabling the European Union to continue to be in full compliance with its international commitments. It must be recognised that the structure of the EU budget makes it difficult to finance major programmes, like GMES, the duration of which far exceeds that of the financial framework.

As the Commission repeated on 30 November in its communication, it considers that it is firmly committed to the success of GMES. If, as proposed, a GMES fund is established by the Member States, the Commission will present, in legal form, a proposal for its implementation. The timetable will depend on the establishment of the financing fund by the Member States within the Council.

Discussions on GMES are taking place at this very moment in the Council and, in this context, there will be an exchange of views on this subject in the Competitiveness Council on 21 February. GMES will provide information which will make it possible to tackle issues ranging from climate change to border surveillance, as I have just said. That is why I think that it is an important programme, which we must continue to support, in one way or another, with the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Norbert Glante, author.(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to apologise. The Parliament building’s lifts were very busy. Perhaps the manufacturers should think about including a priority override function. That is why I am a little late.

Commissioner, I am much obliged to you for answering these pressing questions. Forgive me if I repeat myself a little, but I simply want to emphasise a point – I believe that the GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) programme is one of the two leading initiatives in the European Union’s space policy and is of key importance for the monitoring of the Earth. This, in turn, is an indispensable instrument in the fight against climate change, environmental pollution, disaster prevention and security, sustainable development, mobility and crisis management.

GMES was established as a Union programme and will receive funding of about EUR 3.2 billion from the budget until 2013. The lack of a workable financial plan for long-term, solid financial support would probably mean that the costs will rise in the long term. The programme and the associated supply of data could be temporarily suspended or even abandoned entirely. In the final analysis, this could mean that the investments previously made will have been in vain.

Europe could lose its independence and technological edge in relation to this important space infrastructure. What is at issue? We are talking about a sum of EUR 5.8 billion for the period 2014 to 2020, admittedly a very large amount of money, but one that offers a very substantial economic benefit. Despite the current budgetary difficulties in many Member States, GMES must be sufficiently financed in the budget and through the financial perspective.

Mr Barnier, you wrote us a letter recently. If I might quote you: ‘Europe should not be satisfied with defensive answers to the crisis – however important this may be – Europe must also open up the prospect of new growth for its citizens!’ This idea could be expressed very succinctly. It is possible to drive oneself to destruction through excessive savings. This principle applies in a different context to an important Member State of the European Union.

If GMES is to be run on an intergovernmental basis in future outside the budget, so that Parliament would no longer have a say in the project, then, in my opinion, the European space strategy would be doomed before it even began. This is why we are calling for a legislative proposal from the Commission for the long-term administration, financing and implementation of GMES and the embedding of the budget in medium-term financial planning.

The Danish Presidency announced conclusions for the Competitiveness Council on 21 February and then cancelled them again because there was no majority in the Council. Some Member States question whether the Council Working Party on Space should be responsible for this project, which I find particularly surprising. Unfortunately, this development in the Council has given rise to two camps. One camp, a group of Member States that fund GMES through the budget, has also written to you. A second group wants to follow the proposal tabled by the Commission. If this stalemate continues, I fear that GMES may fail and that an enormous opportunity will have been lost.

This is quite apart from the fact that many millions of euro already spent on the project will have been spent for nothing. The greatest risk, however, is that we will set a precedent, and that the Member States will use this to justify activities outside of the Treaty of Lisbon. I thought we had put these times behind us. I have three demands.

Firstly, I hope that we, the European Parliament, will be courageous enough to continue to finance the major projects of the EU, such as GMES, but also Galileo and ITER, through the budget and to establish separate budget lines with sufficient reserves for this purpose.

Secondly, I hope and demand that the Commission tables this legislative proposal as soon as possible.

Thirdly, I call on the Council to push through reasonable and sufficient funding within the budget and to take the necessary decision.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rachida Dati, on behalf of the PPE Group. (FR) Mr President, I should like to express my support for what my colleague, Mr Glante, has just said. However, on the future of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), it is true that today, we have not established common ground.

There is far more than just GMES at stake. The ambition to safeguard our growth is very real, above and beyond both the technological and environmental aspects mentioned by Mr Glante. We are also finally calling for a Europe of projects, which Mr Barnier has promoted so much, including during the European election campaign.

In its efforts to exclude GMES from the multiannual financial framework, and by dragging its feet over the adoption of a new regulation on the implementation of GMES after 2014, the Commission is casting doubt on the future of this programme. More seriously still, it is casting very real doubt on its ability to actually take on extremely ambitious projects.

Would Mr Barroso – I am sorry, Mr Barnier – for once show some courage and initiative, particularly on this project. In my view, he has indeed shown very little courage or initiative during this parliamentary term, and I say this very clearly. Take action on this project, which is so vital to our competitiveness and for boosting employment. We truly need it at the moment.

As you know, we are very active in the European Parliament. In September, we signed a letter addressed to Mr Barroso. We adopted the report on a space strategy for the European Union, as Mr Glante mentioned earlier, asking you very clearly not to abandon funding for GMES.

Today, through this oral question and this resolution, we have done so again. Mr Barroso should listen to this message, to the messages from those who have been directly elected by Europe’s citizens. The European Union should not abandon a project to the Member States after initiating it and funding it up to now.

In conclusion, I endorse all the requests made earlier by my colleague, Mr Glante.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău , on behalf of the S&D Group. (RO) Mr President, Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 on the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) and its initial operations, for the period 2011-2013, will expire in 2013 and, unfortunately, the Commission has not come up with a new proposal for a regulation. GMES has enormous potential in terms of economic growth and job creation, due to the development of innovative services. GMES provides critical information for sustainable management of the environment, improving the protection of biodiversity, monitoring and forecasting the state of the oceans and atmospheric composition, understanding the determinant factors and the effects of climate change, addressing natural or man-made disasters, supporting policy development and strengthening the security of European citizens.

The GMES service component provides access to information to support the following areas: monitoring the atmosphere, monitoring climate change, the adaptation and mitigation policies, emergency management, land monitoring, marine environment monitoring, and security. GMES applications and services include: space monitoring of air quality, monitoring of toxic algae growth, disaster response training based on data from space, increasing the safety of shipping in the Arctic regions, quantification of the solar energy received by the Earth, satellite tracking of pirated ships, monitoring of volcanic eruptions and their effects on air travel.

On 9 February, the European Space Agency signed contracts to launch two new satellites in 2013: Sentinel 2 and Sentinel 3 of the five-satellite constellation of the GMES programme. We reiterate the request addressed by the Parliament to the Commission within the framework of Resolution 19 of January 2012 concerning a European Union space strategy that benefits its citizens and urge the Commission to finalise the legal framework and clarify the approach to effective governance. We urge the Commission to include GMES in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. Please note that the lack of a financial plan providing long-term economic support could ultimately mean that the investment made to date has been fruitless.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Fiona Hall, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, GMES has a vital role to play, particularly in the fight against climate change. It will deliver accurate scientific information about how climate change is affecting the planet, the land, the sea and the air. GMES will therefore be key to Europe’s long-term security, so it is crucial to guarantee a stable financial framework for the future development of the programme.

I am deeply concerned about the funding proposal from the Commission putting GMES outside the next multiannual financial framework and making it subject to a voluntary intergovernmental agreement. That is no way to finance a strategic security project, and indeed we know that no intergovernmental agreement has yet been reached. We know that some Member States have indeed expressed objections to paying for GMES from their national budgets, so how will the Commission ensure that enough money is found, given the current national budget constraints?

There is a further principle at stake here. Climate change affects us all in different ways and all EU Member States need access to GMES. It contradicts the principle of open access if those Member States who pay more start demanding better conditions of use. GMES will lose its status as a European Union flagship initiative, and it will lose its independence as well.

So what are the alternatives? If GMES was within the MFF, then funding could come from the agriculture budget and the Structural Funds, as well as from Horizon 2020. Equally, innovative financing mechanisms such as project bonds could be explored, allowing private capital to be leveraged. The decision on how to finance GMES is in the hands of the Commission and the Council, so, Commissioner, will you reconsider this question of how GMES is to be financed?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacqueline Foster, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as Vice-President of the Parliament’s Sky and Space Parliamentary Intergroup, I fully support Mr Glante’s motion for a resolution on the future of GMES and I echo his comments.

The primary aim of the European Earth Monitoring Programme, GMES, is to provide information services which give access to accurate data and information in the fields of environment and security. In practice, this means managing natural resources and biodiversity, observing the state of the oceans, monitoring the chemical composition of our atmosphere and providing essential support in the event of disasters such as tsunamis, famine, oil spills, etc., and very serious accidents. The role of the aid agencies is made infinitely easier when they can pinpoint the areas which need help. This is one of Europe’s flagship space initiatives and we should be proud of what it has already achieved and what it can offer to all of us in the future.

With this in mind, I cannot understand why the Commission has indicated that GMES will be funded outside the multiannual financial framework. Member States are already in great difficulty, and I have no confidence that they will come up with the goods. Uncertainty with regard to future funding will be detrimental to hundreds of thousands of people, many high-tech, high-skilled jobs and a supply chain throughout Europe which is growing and developing thanks to the project.

Commissioner, this Parliament has consistently supported the Commission’s position on the EU space programme, but you cannot chop and change and expect us to say nothing.

In conclusion, Europe’s future in space is of paramount importance, and we as MEPs have a responsibility to ensure that space policy remains high on the agenda. Likewise, the Commission has a responsibility to guarantee effective long-term governance and financial management of key EU space projects. If the Commissioner does not want to listen to me, my colleague, the next speaker, Mr Vladimir Remek, was the EU’s first astronaut, so maybe the Commissioner will listen to his comments.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), Blue-card question. (RO) I would like to ask Ms Foster if, in her opinion, in the situation where the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme will not be financed entirely through the European Union budget, could that mean that some Member States that, for example, do not participate voluntarily in the GMES financing, but could be affected by natural disasters, will not have access to the data collected and provided by GMES? I would like Ms Foster to answer this question.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I think I did cover it in my remarks when I said I could not understand why the Commission would remove the type of funding that it already has.

I also did stress that Member States already have huge difficulties, and I could not see them coming forward with additional funding for these products. Ms Ţicău is absolutely right because many Member States could find themselves excluded from these huge programmes. Yes, she is absolutely right, and this is why it is absolutely paramount that the budget stays within the confines of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vladimír Remek, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. (CS) Mr President, Europe does not, unfortunately, have many projects in which it is unrivalled at a global level. GMES is a unique example of such a project. It is therefore odd that we do not have the funds in the EU’s financial framework after 2013 for a project that we claim is one of the basic components of the Europe 2020 strategy. Even with the crisis, we should be capable of setting priorities both for the EU, and in a way that should be understood by Member States in particular. The sum needed for the GMES system to operate is, moreover, remarkably small compared to the vast amounts we are drawing on to fix Europe’s bottomless pits of debt. Pumping hundreds of billions of euro into these pits is mainly about protecting the profits of the banks. The EU is meanwhile often seen as a collection of hidebound bureaucrats. We must show that this is not the case with GMES, and that we are capable of programmes that better the lives of EU inhabitants, as well as the excellence we long for.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). (RO) Mr President, as Commissioner Barnier said, the implementation of the European Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES) could generate profits far above the costs of investments, as well as economic growth and jobs. The Commission proposes to finance GMES, starting with 2013, from sources outside the EU budget, from a fund made up of the financial contributions of the 27 Member States, according to their gross domestic product. This type of funding is detrimental to the project. A community approach is essential because it will enable synergies with the management of the Galileo programme.

At international level, by removing the community dimension, the EU loses credibility in front of the international actors in the field of space industry. GMES should continue to be financed through the EU budget, in order to ensure its sustainable development and use, in the medium and long term.

The Council’s message of January is very clear: GMES must be financed under the multiannual financial framework in order to benefit from a credible and stable financial plan that would ensure that GMES services will have the same level of accessibility in each Member State.

I call on the Commission not to jeopardise the independence of the EU and the development of space technologies and to speedily table a legislative proposal for the proper long-term operation of the GMES. The GMES programme must be implemented in a manner consistent with EU policies. This plan would be an extremely valuable indication for research and the industrial environment in the preparation of technologies and products that facilitate the use of these services.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vittorio Prodi (S&D).(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I have been defending the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme since I arrived in Parliament and I now feel the need – after letters, oral and written questions, resolutions, meetings, debates, hearings and newspaper articles – to remind those who seem to have forgotten what the benefits of this programme are, as listed in a publication written, among others, by the NEREUS Network of European Regions Using Space Technologies.

Here are just some of the areas that the EU will put at risk without GMES: air quality, monitoring of climate change adaptation, EU water policy, the INSPIRE programme for geospatial information, civil protection and emergency services, agriculture and forests, services to the marine environment, monitoring of illegal activities, energy management and urban mapping. To these I would like to add the support, in particular to African countries, for all the technology currently needed to manage the environment.

Given this non-exhaustive list of the merits of GMES, could Commissioner Barnier – who I am sure is an advocate of the benefits of GMES – explain who it is that does not wish for the GMES programme to operate as it has done so far, and why? Why is the Commission hiding behind Council decisions, when we have evidence that at least eight major countries have asked to put GMES back into the multiannual financial framework? Who is insisting (and why?) on adopting an intergovernmental approach with an agreement that would make Parliament’s control of one of the most important space programmes much more difficult, rather than facilitating it as required by the Treaty of Lisbon?

Let it be known that we are friends of GMES: the Commission seems to agree, and claims simply to be following the orders of the Council, the Council itself substantially agrees, and the regions are clamouring for GMES to be fully implemented. It must also be noted that, at this time of crisis, GMES is one of the few sectors where jobs are not being slashed and in which European companies can still boast a competitive edge. Parliament has repeatedly expressed its full support for GMES.

Commissioner Barnier, please tell those in the Commission and its services who are against GMES that it is time to stop. We have to work for Europe and for its young people, so as to make their future less hopeless.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), Blue-card question. (RO) I would like to ask Mr Prodi whether he knows that, with the help of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES), the amount of solar energy received by the Earth was quantified more accurately. Thus, GMES has shown that desert areas receive more solar energy in one day than the total energy consumed by humans in one year. This represents a huge potential, especially given that energy is becoming a scarce resource. The African continent would primarily benefit from using this energy.

I would like Mr Prodi to answer this question.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vittorio Prodi (S&D), Blue-card answer.(IT) Mr President, it is clear that this is possible and is also one of the types of data that Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) can consistently deliver. In any case, I was referring to Africa as a whole continent that needs these supports. The additional costs are tiny for us, but for Africans may hold the prospect of great progress and participation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). (CS) Mr President, in my opinion, it is extremely important to achieve maximum synergies between the Galileo and GMES programmes, with regard to existing European capabilities, thrift and efficient programme management over such an extensive space sector. These are some of the reasons why I consider it right that the Global Navigation Satellite Systems Supervisory Agency (GSA) be entrusted with managing the GMES programme.

In the area of space research, however, we must proceed so as to avoid a funding threat to EU flagship programmes. Concerning the funding, I therefore prefer a solution that would ensure continuation of the GMES programme after 2013, but I am concerned that a solution involving a special fund would bring many question marks and uncertainties. In the discussions over the multiannual financial framework, I will therefore support incorporation of the GMES programme, provided, of course, that we minimise negative impacts on the priority areas of cohesion policy and transport infrastructure development.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE).(FR) Mr President, on 29 June 2011, the European Commission published this unacceptable proposal to finance the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme outside the multiannual financial framework.

Eight months have passed, eight months during which the Member States and the European Parliament have intervened to firmly express their opposition and to call on the Commission to see reason on this matter. Must we still remind the Commission, as several of you have done, that GMES will have an impact on the daily lives of our fellow citizens by providing them with essential services? That is why we are all fighting for its survival, against the Commission’s proposal.

This financial disengagement is difficult to understand for everyone involved, Commissioner, when you, yourself, acknowledged the exemplary nature of this flagship programme. As things currently stand, if we were to summarise the Commission’s position, it would be as follows: ‘If you wish to see this programme survive, finance it yourselves’. Today, the Commission should open its eyes to the reality of the crisis. We cannot ask our countries and our citizens, once again, to make more funding available.

Commissioner, on behalf of the Commission, could you today explain the reasons behind the EU’s disengagement from these programmes, when they give Europe real added value? Furthermore, without getting into technical details, could the Commission justify to our fellow citizens its intention to exclude Parliament from this programme, thereby ruling out all democratic control?

I am calling on you today to express a clear, strong, reasoned position. We cannot allow this sword of Damocles to hang over the future of this programme; all the actors in this market are waiting with baited breath. This dialogue of the deaf runs the risk of paralysing the market, affecting a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises within our borders.

The idea of GMES is to enable the EU to be independent and to maintain the technological advantage that our businesses have been striving to achieve for years.

I hope the Commission will soon put forward a legislative proposal that includes GMES in the next EU budgetary estimates.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the GMES programme is instrumental in allowing the EU to make real progress in developing a comprehensive space strategy. As others have said, the programme will give the EU the ability to directly monitor the earth and its atmosphere and will assist, when fully functional, in handling emergency management of natural disasters.

The case for past investment through the EU budget was convincing, and I believe that it remains so. The programme has made real progress from purely R&D to an operational stage. We cannot risk putting further development of the programme in jeopardy with a proposed move for it to have to rely on intergovernmentanl funding.

The current austerity measures being implemented in many Member States would suggest that if this were a discretionary intergovernmental spend, it would not be incurred. In the field of R&D, it is critically important that the EU budget is used so that longer-term investments are made today in order to fuel the economic competitiveness and growth of future years. It is one of the few programmes I continue to support, believing that investment at EU level will add value and will contribute to the formulation of sound, scientifically-based policies and, hopefully, generate commercial opportunities as the programme matures.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Tatarella (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Commission has clearly committed a serious error, and as it will have realised today, Parliament is calling, almost unanimously, for this error to be rectified. The vote on this issue will be very significant and I hope that the Commission will take that into account.

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) is a European programme of great excellence, whose funding cannot be entrusted to intergovernmental agreements. Some Member States have already expressed themselves in favour of this change of course. This programme is of vital importance for Europe from a political, strategic and technological point of view. We cannot afford to lose either the independence or the technological advantage we have gained and leave space to the Russian and US superpowers. That would also create serious inequalities between Member States. We must act quickly to provide a clear schedule for planning and investment purposes.

We often speak of growth, innovation, scientific research, advanced technologies, investment in industry and quality jobs. Well, GMES encompasses all of this. In this Parliament, we often discuss the fight against climate change, environmental degradation and desertification; we discuss civil protection and security, sustainable development, mobility, crisis management and aid to developing countries. Well, GMES is essential for all of this.

A half-finished programme is equivalent to throwing out significant investments that have already been made, and at times such as these, when the value of fiscal discipline has been rediscovered, that would be very serious. If European integration is democratic, the Commission must listen to the voice of Parliament and the Council. A final consideration: to maximise investment on the part of the EU budget, industry can be involved in a public-private partnership.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Amalia Sartori (PPE).(IT) Commissioner, I believe you are now faced with a rather unusual situation: you have before you an entire committee – the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – which, together with speeches from many other MEPs, are calling on you to clarify a number of issues: we are discussing a great project, one that – like the Galileo and International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) projects – is a flagship of European policy, which goes above and beyond single national policies; a project shared across the board, as you will have noted; a project already funded in part and, indeed, already partly implemented.

Faced with this situation, the concern and the bitterness of Parliament are more than justified after learning that the Commission seems – and I hope we can continue to use this word – to have decided to abandon the project, transferring to others – in particular Member States, at such a difficult time – the determination to continue the project, taking away this Chamber’s power to review the new regulation, as had been decided in 2010.

I hope that Commissioner Barnier and the Commission will choose a different path.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Damien Abad (PPE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security (GMES) programme is the only one of its kind in the world, and symbolises a Europe that promotes projects for industrial cooperation, the same Europe that speaks to our fellow citizens. GMES means innovation, employment, industry and industrial policy. Those are words that should call out to us during this time of crisis.

However, this programme is directly threatened by the European Commission’s proposal to withdraw it from the EU’s financial framework. In addition, the launching of the Sentinel satellites, planned for 2013, cannot be guaranteed in the current context if there is no visibility as regards the funding that will enable the satellites to operate once in orbit.

The interruption of this programme and the subsequent delays will unavoidably lead to higher industrial and budgetary costs as a result. It is vital for this type of industrial programme to continue in order to contain costs and strengthen its efficiency. At a time when we are trying to reduce our spending, changing the course of this programme risks doing the opposite and making costs skyrocket.

In this difficult economic period, the numerous subcontractors cannot consider investing if there is a lack of predictability. GMES must therefore be consolidated and, in order to do so, it must receive sustained and continued support from the European budgetary framework.

To that end, the Members of the European Parliament are calling on you to review this proposal so that GMES can become the symbol of industrial and space policy in Europe.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). (RO) Mr President, I would like to welcome Mr Glante’s initiative to address this oral question. I believe there is a need for funding the European Earth Monitoring Programme beyond the year 2013. In this context, I would like to emphasise the involvement of the European Space Agency in its development.

The component for emergency situations, SAFER, ensures the drafting of reference maps in just six hours after the initial call. For my country, this mechanism has proved particularly useful in many situations. Let me give you just a few examples: in June 2010, the Romanian authorities were able to get a complete map of the areas affected by flooding due to this programme. In November 2011, the same mechanism was called on to identify fire outbreaks near Sibiu. The operation was carried out with the support of the Romanian Space Agency.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). (RO) Mr President, in order to meet the ever increasing worldwide challenges, Europe needs its own well-coordinated and reliable Earth monitoring system. Once operational, GMES will limit the impact of natural disasters, such as those in Chile and/or Haiti. GMES cannot prevent these disasters, but it will make the rescue operations more efficient, as images generated by GMES can identify the areas with problems.

In the case of Romania, often affected by flooding, the destroyed infrastructure can be located, and the population can be evacuated and helped effectively through this system. According to a cost-benefit analysis, it is estimated that the GMES programme will generate benefits worth at least twice the costs of investments by 2020, and four times the costs by 2030. This represents a tremendous potential in terms of economic growth and job creation through the development of innovative services and commercial applications in the downstream sectors.

Therefore, I believe that this programme is worthy of further support within the financial programme.

 
  
 

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, I heard Ms Sartori say earlier that I was in an unusual and somewhat uncomfortable position, but as a Commissioner, that is only to be expected because I have to express beliefs – and even do so both on behalf of my colleague, Mr Tajani, and on my own personal behalf – on the usefulness of this programme and also explain the budgetary difficulties we are experiencing, which have drawn your criticism and comments.

First of all, as regards the substance of this issue, it so happens that I was Minister for the Environment in my own Member State, as Ms Dati and Ms De Veyrac are well aware. These matters have been of interest to me for a long time, and I am very committed to issues of civil protection. Therefore, Ms Ţicău, Ms Hall, Ms Băsescu, Mr Luhan, Ms Foster and yourself, Mr Prodi, you are right to point out the major strategic importance of a programme like the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) for everything related to prevention, creating the right conditions for managing certain types of disasters, climate change management, and environmental management.

Mr Prodi, you were quite right to bring to mind the fact that some of the most fragile countries, including those of the vast African continent – for my part, I mentioned the question of Haiti, with which I am fairly familiar, and it is a country I am very attached to after the major natural disaster it suffered – are, of course, among the most favourable and opportune when it comes to using all the tools offered by GMES. There is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that Vice-President Tajani, on whose behalf I am speaking, and the Commission are determined to make a commitment to major projects.

Ms De Veyrac, as regards everything related to the independence of Europe and industrial policy, I am very keen for us – I am speaking personally for the moment – to find together the same boldness in the area of industrial policy as that shown by the founders of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the Galileo project, which some have mentioned, and GMES. I believe that Europe should once again become a production centre and not simply a territory that consumes goods made in China or the United States, and I shall be saying as much again in other circumstances. Therefore, Mr Abad and Mr Tatarella, honourable Members, this is not a question of abandoning or suspending this programme, to which we should make – to use Ms De Veyrac’s words – a clear, strong, reasoned commitment. That is our approach.

Having mentioned the importance of this programme, its strategic nature and Vice-President Tajani’s commitment to it, the fact remains that we are experiencing budgetary problems. We should say things as they are. I say to Ms Dati, Mr Marinescu and Ms Swinburne: why has the Commission proposed to finance this programme outside the multiannual financial framework? Quite simply because of its cost.

In addition to the funding granted to Galileo, over which we have full ownership, this option cannot currently be supported by the EU budget alone, simply because of the budgetary constraints that we have to take into account. The time required to reach and maintain the operational level of this programme goes well beyond the period covered by the financial framework. That is why the scheduling and implementation of the GMES programme cannot follow the same logic as that of other EU programmes for which the rules and limits of the financial framework still have to be rigorously applied.

I certainly appreciated your appeal. As you requested, I shall inform President Barroso and Mr Tajani of your questions and wishes.

Ms Swinburne, I was very sensitive to your call for Community financing. I should like to remind us all that the proposal for GMES, and I say this to Ms Hall, is to follow a similar approach to that previously used for the European Development Fund (EDF), which our legal services have confirmed would be entirely legal. I would like to say to Ms Ţicău, and to Ms Hall, that the European Commission’s current proposal anticipates a fund that should be financed by all the EU Member States, given that GMES is of equal benefit to all 27 Member States.

I shall therefore pass on your message. I should like to say to Mr Prodi, who always takes great interest in such issues concerning the environment and GMES, that it is true that the eight Member States you listed have officially requested, in a letter to the Commission, that GMES be reintroduced into the financial framework.

I have observed – without malice, simply to be objective – that of those eight Member States, some have also written to us to ask for the European budget to be contained within the strict ceiling of 1% of GDP, and even for it to be reduced. We are therefore in a difficult position in our dialogue, which explains why no agreement has yet been established between all the Member States within the Council. The Council was unable to reach a joint decision on competitiveness and we will be returning to this point soon.

In conclusion, I should also like to say to Mr Remek, Mr Marinescu and Mr Abad, who mentioned space policy as a whole, that we indeed need to take a different approach to the two questions that make up this major space issue: Galileo and GMES. Galileo and the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) are owned by the European Union, and it was therefore only natural that we should continue to take general and collective responsibility for their funding. This is not so for GMES, because the development phase was cofinanced by the Commission and we do not have ownership of the infrastructure.

I am aware that these answers will not satisfy you. They are subject to the contradiction that exists between our continued industrial, spatial and economic ambitions and the budgetary constraints that we have to take into consideration.

In any case, honourable Members, on behalf of Vice-President Tajani, I shall inform my colleagues of your questions, your criticisms and your expectations on this major issue.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure(1).

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I welcomed the idea of setting up the European Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme as the right response from the EU to the ever increasing need for accurate and reliable environmental data, particularly in relation to climate change, migration and shortages of resources and food. It should be technically the most advanced programme in the world in the area of environmental monitoring, helping to ensure greater security for European citizens and a better system of humanitarian aid, contributing to the sustainable development of the EU and, last but not least, encouraging innovation. I am concerned that the European Commission decided to transfer the funding of GMES outside the multiannual financial framework, and I do not agree with this step. I am concerned that the GMES programme will lose its European dimension in this way, becoming a mere instrument of individual interests. In its communication on the European programme for Earth monitoring and the programme’s operational activities starting in 2014, the Commission stated that it was committed to ensuring the success of the GMES programme, and in this context drew up the communication in order to specify appropriate management and long-term funding of the programme from 2014. I really do hope the Commission will stick to its commitment.

 
  
  

(The sitting was suspended for a short time)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

 
  

(1) See Minutes

Legal notice - Privacy policy