If the EU can't get a grip on the escalating costs of the satellite navigation system, the member states who benefit most from it must pay, says the German MEP.

Interview: Galileo will show its added value by and by - Glante

Mr Glante, hello and welcome  to this interview.

Galileo, a European dream, has become  a financial nightmare over the years.

The initial cost was €3.4 billion.  Now €1.9 billion have been added,

along with the yearly costs  of €800 million.

How did this happen?  And what do you think of this chaos?

'Nightmare' is a actually a good metaphor.

We often worry about this.  But there are reasons.

The initial sum of €3.4 billion  was calculated on the basis

of unanimity of the Council. There were  limits that had to be respected.

A PPP-model had been planned,  but that didn't happen and...

A PPP-model is...?  - A Public-Private Partnership.

But there was no competition, so we  decided to stay with the public sector.

This process created delays  and certain costs, of course.

The price of rocket launches,  for instance, has increased 50-60%.

That's one reason for the cost increase.

We have to get this under control  as soon as possible to still be successful.

According to Commissioner Tajani  there's another reason.

The rules for awarding these contracts  were apparently not clear.

The word is that competition  was not transparent.

but in the astronautics sector  there are not that many players.

So competition is fairly limited,  that's something to bear in mind.

When we get an offer,  when ESA does something for us,

and there's only one offer, it's hard  to pit bidders against each other.

The Commission says that the EU  is ready to cover the costs up to a point.

But the Member States  will have to cover the rest.

Does this mean Germany  will have to pay?

The questions is, who will pay in the end?  And who will profit?

We had debated whether to cover  Galileo's costs from the EU budget

or like the ESA does - states pay a quota  and get contracts accordingly.

This hybrid funding doesn't work,  but one could say,

the structure was built with EU funding,  so it's the Member States' turn now.

The Member States that will profit  from the project can then take part.

What will Galileo be able to achieve  and who will be allowed to use it?

It's all about this acronym PRS,  Public Regulated Services.

Who will take the decisions?  Who will be allowed to use it?

Galileo includes several services.  We use a well-known public signal

which works alongside GPS  and is GPS-compatible.

It will increase accuracy  in inner cities, for example.

It's open to everyone. In future we'll have  receivers with Galileo and GPS chips.

There is this PRS signal which is  appropriate for sophisticated applications

that can be found in sectors  like public safety and air traffic.

and we have to make sure  that access to this signal is limited.

Due to the safety issue, we must decide  who will manufacture the receivers.

We are voting on a report  in the ITRE Committee today.

So, we control access to the signal,  also in terms of third countries

that may later  contribute to the PRS signal.

The problem is that Galileo's added value  won't emerge as quickly as expected.

By 2014 or 2015 we will be able  to cover the public sector

We will also be able to cover  rescue operations at sea and on land.

But the added value of greater accuracy  for air safety, air traffic, etc.

will only come later. But it will make the  difference in quality compared with GPS.