25 Amendments of Pierre PRIBETICH
Amendment 4 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas it is recognised that whilst urban issues fall under the responsibility of national, regional, and local authorities, urban areas nevertheless play a key role in the effective implementation of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies and form an highly significant part of theare given a high priority in Cohesion Policy, for which the EU institutions have a responsibility,
Amendment 7 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas 80 percent of the 492 million EU inhabitants live in live in cities, twhere areas however there are some significant differences between Member States regarding the population distribution in urban, suburban and rural areas, but nonetheless the Union is characterised by its polycentric development,
Amendment 14 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas having detailed statistical data available is essential for measuring progress and identifying problems in urban areas,
Amendment 18 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the sharing of experience and best practice in regard to the development of European cities constitutes a fundamental element in facing worldwide competition,
Amendment 22 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas climate change represents the major challenge of the 21st century for urban areas, both in terms of renewing their old housing stock and of new styles of travel and of urban infrastructure,
Amendment 28 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. EPoints out that the Member States are encouraged to make sustainable urban development a strategic priority but are not obliged to do so, and consequently expresses concern that the urban dimension is inadequately taken into account by some Member States, and; calls on the Commission and Member States in cooperation with regional and local authorities to analyse and evaluate the impact of mainstreaming the URBAN initiative and regularly to monitor and examine the application of EU funds in urban areas;
Amendment 33 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses the view that it would be inappropriate to adopt a common definition of "urban areas" and of the term "urban" in general, as this would not adequately take account of the variety of situations in Member States and regions and hence takes the view that any obligatory definition and designation of urban areas should be left to Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 43 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Is firmly of the opinion that sub-delegation represents a major tool for improving the administrative capacity of local management and for regional and European growth;
Amendment 66 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the urban development potential of the private sector and believes that the use of Public Private Partnerships should be systematically envisaged and encouraged for the establishment of innovative financing schemes and projects, notably for construction of infrastructure and for housing;
Amendment 69 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Believes that the governance structures in place in the Member States are still ill adapted to encouraging horizontal cooperation and strongly urges the Commission to promote the principle of a cross-sector management structure;
Amendment 72 #
2008/2130(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for further financial, human and organisational resources to be made available in order to create and strengthen the networks established by towns and cities in the field of sustainable urban development as they play an important part in territorial cooperation and calls on the Commission to strengthen the position of urban areas in the Regions for Economic Change initiative;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the regional authorities concerned to implement a multimodal transport policy to give ports effective hinterland connections, in particular through the use of railways and inland waterways; notes that the significant increase in container traffic to be expected by 2010 will engender a parallel increase in the use of intermediate ports that are closer to the end user, thus reducing road traffic, which is a real source of conflict with local authoritiealso urges that greater use be made of intermediate ports by unloading cargoes in one or more feedering steps so as to reduce congestion in the main ports and their environs and bring the cargo as close as possible to the recipients; stresses, therefore, that it would be useful to diversify unloading points with a view to significantly reducing road traffic and addressing a recurrent congestion problem in the environs of the port zone; calls at the same time, during the planning of port facilities, for an in-depth evaluation of whether these unloading points, which are smaller and closer to the recipient, are nevertheless capable of handling a larger number of unloadings, partly in the light of their infrastructure and road network, so that the problem is not simply shifted to other port areas;
Amendment 18 #
2008/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on ports and maritime industries to make an effort to reduce pollution caused by ships in ports, by way of a Community-wide response to requests from city authorities, and to bring about a perceptible reduction in water and air pollution; stresses the need to reduce CO2 emissions from sea transport, to support international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to study the possibility of proposing Community back-up measures;
Amendment 20 #
2008/2007(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Emphasises most strongly that any debate on Europe and its maritime policy, if it is to succeed, must include the major role played by the European recreational craft sector in terms of local economic development, since marinas are not only a showcase for their hinterland, a powerful tool for promoting the discovery of the port and its environs, but also an essential supply service for local businesses; stresses that marinas play a major role in integrating the port into the city, not forgetting the recreational craft construction industry, which is a genuine economic driver for many European regions in terms of employment and business creation;
Amendment 1 #
2007/2265(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends that scientific and technical cooperation and the protection of intellectual property be made essential elements of such agreements; stresses in particular the need to tackle counterfeiting by means of the binding instruments contained in the agreements; points out that genuine cooperation among all actors concerned will make it possible to combat counterfeiting effectively, particularly the counterfeiting of pharmaceutical products;
Amendment 2 #
2007/2265(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5, point (ii)
Paragraph 5, point (ii)
(ii) the harmonisation of standards, including product safety, child protectionhuman rights protection, in particular by combating the exploitation of children in enterprises, and animal welfare standards,
Amendment 4 #
2007/2265(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6, point (iv a) (new)
Paragraph 6, point (iv a) (new)
(iv a) legislation to promote a reduction in CO2 emissions by enterprises, taking into account emission quotas, so as not to penalise European Union enterprises subject to new rules under the climate change plan;
Amendment 137 #
2007/2037(DEC)
Paragraph 6 (Part V - Special Report 5/2007 on the Commission’s management of the CARDS programme)
6. Is baffled at the difference in quality between the report on the management of the CARDS programme and the – often excellent – quality of comparablRequests the ECA to carry out a follow up audit focusing on a comparison between the Commission's management of the CARDS programme and the EAR's management of this programme on behalf of the Commission, the results of which should be preports by the ECAsented to Parliament by September 2008;
Amendment 48 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) The European Union’s car fleet is ageing rapidly. The large proportion of vehicles in the European car fleet which are more than 10 years old undermines any new regulations on CO2.emissions. Particular attention must therefore be paid to renewing the fleet by providing incentives to purchase new vehicles.
Amendment 58 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In order to maintain the diversity of the car market and its ability to cater for different consumer needs, CO2 targets for passenger cars should be defined as a function of the utility of the cars on a linear basis. To describe this utility, mass is the mostan appropriate parameter because itwhich provides a satisfactory correlation with present emissions and would therefore result in more realistic and competitively neutral targets and because data on mass is readily available. Data on the alternative utility parameter of footprint (track width times wheelbase) should, however, be collected in order to facilitate longer-term evaluations of the utility- based approach. However, this parameter introduces an incentive to manufacture heavier vehicles, which is a counter-productive move in the context of reducing CO2 emissions. Consequently, footprint (track width times wheelbase) should be taken into account in the calculation to provide manufacturers with an incentive to reduce vehicle mass, which is the least expensive investment for reducing CO2 emissions. Using the footprint would also make it possible to set more realistic and competitively neutral targets. In the establishment of the targets, the projected evolution of new cars' mass and footprint until 2012 should be taken into account, and potential incentives to increase vehicle mass just in order to benefit from a consequential increase of the CO2 reduction target should be avoided. Therefore, the possible future autonomous mass increase evolution of vehicles produced by the manufacturers and sold on the EU market should be taken into account when defining the targets for 2012. Finally, differentiation of targets should encourage emissions reductions to be made in all categories of cars while recognising that larger emission reductions can be made for heavier cars.
Amendment 73 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Manufacturers' compliance with the targets under this Regulation should be assessed at the Community level. Manufacturers whose average specific emissions of CO2 exceed those permitted under this Regulation should pay an excess emissions premium in respect of each calendar year from 2012 onwards. The premium should be modulated as a function of the extent to which manufacturers fail to comply with their target. It should increase over time. In order to provide a sufficient incentive to take measures to reduce specific emissions of CO2 from passenger cars, the premium should reflect technological costs. The amounts of the excess emissions premium should be considered as revenue for the budget of the European Union, half of which should go into the fund for the European environmental bonus and half to increase support for research and innovation activities aimed at reducing CO2 in the automotive sector.
Amendment 79 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) It is appropriate that the Commission should propose the creation of a European environmental bonus, funded from half of the amounts raised from excess emission premiums. The European environmental bonus, defined as a premium paid to consumers in liaison with the Member States when they replace a vehicle which is more than 10 years old with a new vehicle, will allow the ageing car fleet to be renewed, thus making a major contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.
Amendment 88 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
Article 1
This Regulation establishes CO2 emission performance requirements for new passenger cars in order to ensure proper functioning of the internal market and achieve the EU's overall objective that the average new car fleet should achieve CO2 emissions of 120 g CO2/kmof reducing CO2 emissions in the EU, including in the transport sector. The Regulation sets the average CO2 emissions for the new car fleet at 120 g CO2/km as from 1 January 2012. The Regulation sets the average CO2 emissions for new passenger cars at 130 g CO2/km by means of improvement in vehicle motor technology as measured in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing measures. This Regulation will be complemented by additional measures corresponding to 10 g/km as part of the Community's integrated approach. The Regulation also sets a target for the new car fleet of average emissions of no more than 95 g CO2/km as from 1 January 2020.
Amendment 164 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. All manufacturers involved in high- level automobile competition may request a derogation from the specific emissions targets calculated in accordance with Annex I, since such manufacturers invest in research and development and in improving safety conditions and, in their own way, help to reduce CO2 emissions through technological innovations.
Amendment 181 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1
Annex I – paragraph 1
1. For each new passenger car, the permitted specific emissions of CO2, measured in grams per kilometre shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: Permitted specific emissions of CO2 = 130 + ½[a × (M – M0) + b × (F – F0)]. + ½[ Where: M = mass of the vehicle in kilograms (kg) M0 = 1289.0 × f f = (1 + AMI) Autonomous mass increase (AMI) = 0 % a = 0.04576 F = footprint (track width x wheel base) of the vehicle in square metres (m²) F0 = 3.89 m² a = 0.03048 b = 28.9