VZCZCXRO0005
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHHM RUEHIK RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHPB RUEHPOD
RUEHROV
DE RUEHBS #0310/01 0591624
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281624Z FEB 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000310 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR OES 
DEPT FOR EUR/ERA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EUN TSPA TSPL
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS UTILITY OF GALILEO 
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Amendments made by Parliament to the 
Commission's new proposal for the governance and financing 
for the Galileo satellite navigation program were debated 
during the January 29 meeting of the European Parliament's 
Industry, Research, and Energy Committee (ITRE).  Key topics 
at issue were: 
--the utility of the Galileo Supervisory Authority 
(GSA)-considered by most Members of European Parliament 
(MEPs) and the Commission as of continued relevance to the 
program; 
--recent press articles contending that the true cost of 
Galileo could be as much as EUR 10B as opposed to the EUR 
3.4B approved by the Council-the Commission and the Slovenian 
Presidency stand behind the previous budget assessments and 
do not agree with the press reports; 
--whether to vote on the proposals as amended-ITRE decided 
not to vote at this time, as it allows for further 
opportunity for negotiations with the Council.  As of now, 
this should not jeopardize the timeline for Galileo, but if 
further delays in Parliament do occur, cost and time overruns 
are possible.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) During a meeting of the European Parliament's 
Industry, Research, and Energy Committee (ITRE), several 
Members of European Parliament (MEPs) questioned how useful 
the Galileo Supervisory Authority (GSA) really is now that 
Galileo is completely publicly funded.  Their argument is 
that as there is no longer a public-private partnership, the 
original role and purpose of the GSA no longer exists.  This 
view was not, however, shared by MEP Etelka Barsi-Pataky, 
Parliament's Rapporteur for Galileo, explaining that the 
expertise held within GSA is very important for future 
efforts, specifically as the EU debates how to fund and 
govern the operation phase for Galileo.  Control of the 
program could again be turned over to a public-private 
partnership after the full satellite constellation is in 
place.  Director Karamitsos from the Commission,s 
Directorate General for Energy and Transport, during his 
presentation to Parliament, supported this view, adding that 
the Commission expects to delegate new work to GSA on topics 
such as technical support and preparing future markets, while 
keeping in mind that the expertise developed during past 
concession negotiations will be of use in 2010 when the 
Commission is expected to present its proposals on the 
operational phase. 
 
¶3. (SBU) During a meeting with a member of the ITRE 
Secretariat, Econ officers were informed that it is expected 
 
SIPDIS 
the ITRE committee final vote count on this issue will be 28 
in favor of keeping GSA, 10 opposed, and one abstention. 
(Comment: This is not the first time that USEU has heard GSA 
questioned.  During meetings with the Commission, OES and 
USEU Econ Officers were told that one option during the new 
proposals was to disband GSA completely, but was ultimately 
dismissed as it was logistically more difficult to dissolve 
it than to keep it.  End comment.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) During the same ITRE session, the discussion shifted 
to recent press articles explaining Galileo could cost as 
much as EUR 10 billion.  Director Karamitsos again defended 
the figures, explaining that in his belief, some in industry 
were trying to "conduct early negotiations" through the press 
in order to garner more funds for contracts.  However, he did 
explain that delays could add up to substantial cost 
overruns, with each day wasted costing EUR 1.5 million. 
(Comment: This was a direct attack at Parliament's inability 
to come to decision quickly when most of the details already 
have been resolved.  End comment.)  During the presentation 
of Slovenia's Minister of Transport to the ITRE committee the 
previous week, responding to these reports, Minister Zerjav 
explained that all 27 Member States, Parliament, and the 
Commission are in agreement that the evaluated EUR 3.4B 
figure remains accurate. 
 
¶5. (SBU) As was expected, Parliament did not come to vote on 
the 1st reading of Amendments to the Commission's proposals. 
During the meeting with the ITRE Secretariat, it was 
explained that the Council is not in agreement with many of 
the amendments made by the Parliament, and this will need to 
be discussed in Strasbourg the week of February 18. 
(Comment: Note that this does not jeopardize the decisions 
made by the Council in December, but the EP wants the chance 
to negotiate a little more with the Council.  However, no 
public statements have emerged from those meetings, and it is 
not clear if Galileo was discussed.  End comment.)  Despite 
the concerns-which were not described in detail-the 
 
BRUSSELS 00000310  002 OF 002 
 
 
Secretariat official expects that consensus will be reached 
 
SIPDIS 
soon.  The final ITRE voting date has now slipped to sometime 
in March, which still allows for a plenary vote in early 
April, but does cause concern if a new issue does arise. 
Assuming that consensus is reached and the vote in April is 
positive, and the Council subsequently approves with the 
conclusion of the negotiations, ESA will be able to begin 
issuing calls for proposals in late Spring. 
 
WOHLERS 
.