Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.2.2-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, which I have the honour of chairing, is following the process of achieving a trans-European transport network (TEN-T), as set out in the guidelines codecided by the Council and Parliament in April 2004, with much attention and with some concern.
In the hope that this recommendation will be accepted and incorporated by the Council and the Commission, I will conclude with the request, addressed to the Commission, that it should specify the 48 cross-border sections clearly and precisely. Commissioner, Minister, I confidently await your replies.
The concerns stem from the discovery of significant delays in the execution of constituent projects of the first definition of the TEN-T – codecided in 1996 – and from the identification of insufficient funding as the principal cause of those delays. Decision No 884/2004, which amended the definition of the TEN-T in the Union of 25, anticipates large-scale financial requirements: at least EUR 225 billion for the 30 projects from now until 2020, of which at least EUR 140 billion is to be spent in the period incorporated within the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective.
Given the strategic value of creating the trans-European network, it would appear crucial that funding for these requirements should be guaranteed straight away, if possible even prior to the definition of the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective, in order to prevent unbearable frustrations for the Union and Member States in coming years.
It is strategic for the internal and external competitiveness of the economy of a Union that must fully exploit the benefits of the single market. Such benefits will be illusory if a product manufactured in Lisbon or Dublin cannot compete with similar products manufactured in Warsaw or Budapest because of differentials in transport costs. It is strategic for the sustainability of European transport, since the priority projects chiefly concern rail, marine and river transport. Lastly, it is strategic for the genuine integration of European society: social and cultural integration that is neither forced nor impeded, but which requires effective links between every Member State of the Union to allow communication, exchange, recognition and appreciation of identity and diversity to take place.
If, as I hope, the Commission and the Council confirm their awareness of the strategic value of the TEN-T here today, the assurances required by Parliament as a consequence concern, firstly, whether the appropriation for Community cofinancing of the entire network will be sufficient for all of the 30 projects to be carried out by 2020; and, secondly, when and where it will be appropriate for Community cofinancing to be used, so as to back up the far more extensive funding provided by the Member States as well as, where possible, the contributions made by private individuals in private/public partnerships.
Community rules and decisions to facilitate all of this – from the Eurovignette directive to the creation of a special fund of loan indemnities – are necessary additions. It is in that context and in view of the EUR 20.3 billion proposed for the TEN-T by the Commission under the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective – a budget that would guarantee that an average 15% of the funding of the trans-European transport network is met – that the Committee, through me, would like to learn from the Council whether it considers that sum adequate to cover the amount of Community cofinancing that is necessary and sufficient for all 30 projects. In other words, can the Council guarantee that the Member States will be able to finance the remaining 85% on average of the estimated funding from their own public or private resources, or ought we not to consider increasing the Community share?
We address the same question to the Commission, and call on it, moreover, to disclose the time frame for the take-up of Community funding by the various projects, which means knowing their stage of progress, administratively and technically, both now and in the future. We also ask how it intends to distribute the available budget in time and space.
The next question is addressed to both the Council and the Commission and includes a proposal or explicit recommendation: is it not advisable to concentrate Community cofinancing as a priority, if not exclusively, on the 48 cross-border sections of the 30 projects: those that straddle two Member States, which in many cases do not get off the ground as a result of conflicts of competences or interest? This would have many positive effects: by limiting funding just to the 48 cross-border sections, it would put us in a position to make the idea of a 30-50% level of cofinancing a feasible one and ensure that those sections were constructed promptly.
If Community cofinancing were made conditional and the endorsement of international bilateral treaties were required, the Member States would be forced to clearly accept their responsibility even for internal sections. By ensuring that cross-border sections would be completed, stumbling blocks would turn into incentives. To give an example that I know first-hand, how could the internal section between Turin and Trieste not be completed if the Union guaranteed the completion in a set time of the Fréjus Tunnel between Turin and Lyon on the French side, and the Trieste-Divača stretch on the Italian-Slovenian side?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples