Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.8.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the trans-European networks are one of the driving forces for the achievement of growth, competitiveness and employment within the European Union. The December 1994 European Council in Essen in gave a decisive political incentive to the TENs by adopting a list of fourteen priority projects. A number of financial instruments were set up by the Community and the European Investment Bank in order to achieve these objectives.
The main purpose of Community assistance for TENs is to help to surmount the financial obstacles which may arise when a project gets under way. In principle, Community assistance is currently restricted to 10% of overall costs, with the exception of Galileo, which can receive up to 20% of its funding from the Community. The rest of the expenditure is due to be co-financed through either local, regional or national budgets.
Regrettably, however, work is not advancing as rapidly as expected. Of the 14 ‘specific’ projects approved at the Essen summit, only three have been completed. Six others should be finished by 2005. As to the remaining five projects, no clear indication has been given on their timetable. Where, then, do the problems lie? In the first place, the pace of investment has been too slow. The Commission estimates that if the rate of funding does not increase between now and 2010, there is a very strong likelihood that the network will not be fully completed, in particular the railway components. The longest delays are generally on cross-border projects since the Member States have given priority funding to the national sections of the trans-European network in their investment decisions.
These delays can mainly be attributed to the lack of an integrated approach to the planning, assessment and funding of cross-border infrastructures. Moreover, the Community’s budgetary resources and legal instruments do not enable it to do anything on its own to speed up these cross-border projects since, under the Treaty, the national authorities are responsible for the implementation of a project on the territory of a Member State. The areas most seriously affected by the persistence of bottlenecks are the international corridors in which North-South trans-European traffic is highly concentrated, natural barriers such as the Alps and the Pyrenees, the outskirts of major conurbations and trading centres in which long-distance, regional and local traffic meet and are concentrated and a number of European Union borders, in particular those with the accession countries. The Commission therefore proposes to focus Community activities and projects on the reduction of bottlenecks.
During the past few years, the Commission has been able to maintain a relatively high level of implementation and, since early 2002, the backlog has started to decrease. The Commission has now presented a proposal to modify the general rules for granting Community financial aid in the field of TENs. As a result, Community support would be increased from 10% to 20% in order to have a leverage effect and to attract private investors in particular. This modification would be aimed at three categories of projects: cross-border rail projects crossing natural barriers such as the Alps and the Pyrenees, projects aimed at eliminating clearly identified bottlenecks at borders with the candidate countries, and the 12 priority energy projects. The first two categories fall within the scope of the trans-European transport network as established by Decision No 1692/96/EC. An additional amount of EUR 100 million in the period 2003-2006 would be assigned to the transport TENs budget line (B5-700) to complement support provided through ISPA. The TENs financial envelope set for the current financial perspective (2000-2006) would therefore have to be revised. Finally, the Commission proposes to reallocate EUR 50 million in favour of the cross-border projects within the current transport TENs envelope.
As to GALILEO, it will continue to receive 20% of its funding from the Community.
My comments? Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6 establish the general framework, restoring the balance of the Commission’s proposal, which tended to emphasise the importance solely of projects involving the candidate countries. Amendment No 2 calls upon the Commission to prepare an evaluation on the Member States’ responsibilities. Amendment No 4 introduces the possibility for Member States who wish to do so to have recourse to private capital and stresses that the economic and social added value of projects and their compatibility with the objective of sustainable mobility should also be assessed when selection takes place. Amendment No 7 states that the increase in the financial framework should be compatible with the financial perspective and not cause any restriction to be placed on other programmes. I therefore call upon the Commission to consult the budgetary authority again prior to the reallocation of funds within transport TENs. Amendment No 8 lays down the terms for the implementation of the proposal as regards the trans-European transport network, as established by Decision 1692/96 adopted on 23 July 1996. Amendment No 9 authorises the Commission to demand reimbursement of the sums awarded for projects not completed within the space of 10 years. Amendment No 10 deals with comitology and, lastly, Amendment No 11 concerns what is known as the ‘sunset’ clause.
I hope that, although this presentation has been brief due to time constraints, it has covered all the salient points, and I hope that we will succeed in completing the development of the TENs both for our own sakes and, above all, for the future of Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples