Brussels, 08/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - While unanimous in their support of the Galileo project, member states are still having difficulty in resolving the problem of funding. The exchange of views scheduled for the Ecofin Council next week will show which options each prefer and which are unacceptable. EU finance ministers would have wanted better preparation at their last meeting of their November discussion to try to make progress on the financial arrangements for Galileo, the European satellite navigation project (see EUROPE 9519). Not many, however, in industrial, or even political, circles, expect a breakthrough before the December European Council, given the difficulty in reaching any sort of compromise. The ambassadors of the 27 member states, meeting on Tuesday 7 November, called on the Commission to clarify the issue of a possible redeployment in heading 1a (competitiveness) before the Budget Council on 23 November.
Germany is still suggesting mixed financing, partly through the Community budget and partly through the European Space Agency. This option, indeed, presents the advantage of ensuring spin-offs for companies, equivalent to the contribution of the member state which commits itself to funding. Member states, while prepared to accept an additional amount of €2.4 billion from the Community budget, agree that there must be no increase in the overall ceiling of the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Only a few seem prepared to accept a limited change in the current financial framework.
The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden, with backing from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Hungary and Latvia, oppose any revision of any ceiling of the financial perspective, because this would constitute an unwelcome precedent for budgetary discipline.
Several others (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Spain) believe that adjustment of the headings is a possibility, but they want clarification. The majority feel that the Commission, in its proposal, makes insufficient use of the financing possibilities under sub-heading 1a, namely, reprioritising actions, using some of the remaining margins of redeployment within this sub-heading by using the possibility of varying the initially agreed reference amounts by up to 5%.
Many member states are concerned about the use of the remaining margins under the other headings and sub-headings (in its proposal, the Commission provided particularly for the use of headings 2 and 5, agriculture and administration). Several member states reject the use of margins available in agricultural expenditure, a possibility that the Commission highlights, however. For 2007, some member states (France, Ireland and Spain) could accept a one-off use of the remaining margins as long as satisfactory assurances are given on the adequacy of the funding for agricultural markets in the future. (A.B.)