Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-175"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.5.3-175"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please remember that back in October 2001, on the basis of the White Paper, the Commission presented to the Council and Parliament an initial proposed amendment of the Decision on the guidelines and updating of the 14 priority projects approved in 1994 by the Essen European Council. At first reading, Parliament approved the main points of this proposed revision of the guidelines for the trans-European networks, in accordance with the compromise which had been reached.
The complete list of priority projects – three of which have been completed – represents an investment of EUR 224 000 million between now and 2020. But that is nothing more than the really essential part, the tip of the iceberg, because we must remember that the total cost of the projects for the trans-European networks for the Union of 27 States is more than 600 000 million. In other words, if we were really to carry out all the projects which we consider to be of trans-European interest in order to structure European Union transport, we would be talking about an investment of more than EUR 600 000 million, and what we are indicating is that of that 600 000, the most urgent sum represents at least EUR 225 000 million.
I am pleased to note that the rapporteur’s report stresses the need to focus support and funding on priority projects within the project of European interest. This initial selection effort is essential in order to clarify what is of European interest in relation to great networks and what, for example, is included in regional development.
In order to enhance the coordination between the States of the Union, the Commission proposes appointing – and now we are getting into new contributions beyond the drawing up of big routes – a European coordinator for one or several specific projects with a trans-European component. The job of this coordinator will be to advise the promoters of the project with regard to funding and assessment and also to promote synchronised development on each side of the border in the case of trans-European projects, as well as to carry out the different administrative procedures accompanying this type of project.
It must be pointed out that, from the point of view of evaluation, we know that this will require consultations, work, not only with the States – firstly – but also, in many cases, with the regions affected and the neighbouring populations.
The Commission also proposes a procedure for declaration of European interest which will mean encouraging the States to respect the timetable for the works listed in the proposal, and to integrate the assessment procedures divided between different States. In other words, the ultimate objective is to establish single and coordinated evaluation procedures between two States, which will enable border areas to make simultaneous progress and, where necessary, the border regions to be better coordinated.
According to the Commission's proposal, this declaration could be withdrawn if the requirements are not fulfilled, in particular with regard to the timetable for work and the progress of the process.
All the objectives I have just described are clear and achievable and we believe essential.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is still possible to adopt this proposal during this legislature – although it is true that we have very little time – and it is therefore necessary that the approach of the three institutions is based on cooperation and the will to make progress and to demonstrate a degree of flexibility.
As far as I am aware, the current differences are not really so great and I believe it is possible to reach an agreement – I would insist – before the end of this legislature.
The approval of this proposal before 1 May would be extremely important, essentially for the new States, which could thereby benefit from that date and be genuinely included in this great project we are establishing amongst all of us.
The Commission's proposal of 1 October – which is now on the table in Parliament – for this type of ‘first second reading’, completes that.
Meanwhile, the Council has reached a political agreement on the text which combines both proposals, which, let us remember, represent the design of the trans-European networks in an enlarged Europe, a Europe of 27 Member States.
I must say that the Commission's proposal today includes the updating of the priority projects, but also – and I would like to stress this point – of the organisational resources aimed at improving their planning, monitoring, coordination, funding and, therefore, their realisation, at European level. Our intention in this case is that the maps showing routes should become reality within our European geography.
So what are the principal objectives of this proposal? Firstly, I would like to point out that, on the basis of some 100 proposals presented by the States, the high-level group recommended reviewing the projects which conform to the following criteria: they are located on important European routes, they are subject to firm commitment on the part of the States in question, with a closed timetable for completion, they offer advantages in terms of aspects such as environmental protection, modal balance and territorial cohesion.
We must remember that in that high-level group, chaired by former Commissioner Karel van Miert, not only were all the States of the Union + 10 + 2 represented, but also the European Investment Bank, whose opinions in relation to the economic aspects of the projects have been very useful.
It should be noted that one of these priority projects concerns the so-called ‘motorways of the sea’, which are alternatives to the saturated land corridors and which must improve accessibility of regions which are disadvantaged by their geography, that is to say, the peripheral regions.
The main innovation is that, within the framework of the trans-European networks, it will be possible to grant subsidies for implementation under specific conditions, which represents an interesting alternative for the European transport system, but furthermore emphasise port equipment in interconnection ports and the interconnections of ports with their surrounding areas.
I must say that the aid for launching the new lines which would constitute the motorways of the sea would be restricted to what is absolutely necessary in order to guarantee the viability of economic relations between two States which jointly decide to establish one of these regular interconnections as an alternative to other modes of transport."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples