Activities of Rolandas PAKSAS related to 2018/2156(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on military mobility
Amendments (8)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes a negative view of the joint communication by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the Action Plan on Military Mobility, as it recognises the strategic role played by the trans- European transport network (TEN-T) in integrating the Union’s infrastructure in order to achieve rapid and seamless mobility across the continent, thus further developing the internal market; considers that no EU funds for civil purposes should be used for military mobility purposes;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Strongly suOpportses the decision to allocate the military mobility envelope under the centralised management of the CEF programme; takes note of the preliminary actions set by the Action Plan prior to the implementation of the military mobility which will be based on identification of and agreement on the military requirements, followed by the identification of sections of the TEN-T network suitable also for military transport and a list of priority projects, together with the eventual upgrade of the technical requirements applicable to the TEN-T networkrecognises the strategic role played by the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) in integrating the Union’s infrastructure in order to achieve rapid and seamless mobility across the continent, thus further developing the internal market. Therefore, TEN-T should be given priority and provided with adequate funding, by eliminating barriers in the main TEN-T corridors;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that infrastructure features (e.g. weight tolerance, maximum height clearance) have a significant impact on speed of movement; points out that seamless mobility and logistics are essential for military deployment, as they are for passenger and freight transport; sees the implementation of the Action PlanCEF as an opportunity to enable the civilian transport network to benefit from increased network capacity and to foster multimodal connections;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the military mobility projects will have to follow the same criteria, conditions and procedures as set out in the CEF regulation in order to be eligible; stresses that the process of identification of the sections of the TEN-T network suitable for military transport must unconditionally maximise civilian and military synergiesare not properly funded under the CEF programme, and they should not be subject to the same criteria, conditions and procedures as those set out in the CEF regulation;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the opinion that for the purpose of optimising the use of EU funds, any transport project of common interest financed by CEF should not integrate the military mobility technical requirements, at the conception phase, in order to avoid unnecessary upgrading of the infrastructure at a later stage for purely military reasons and, therefore, uneconomical use of funding;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that any contribution from the CEF military mobility envelope should, wherever possible, give priority to multimodal projects, as they bring the most opportunities for dual use, according to the pilot analysis carried out in 2017, and tond cross-border projects, as they contribute to addressing existing missing links and bottlenecks, which are the major current physical barriers to a rapid and seamless mobility;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that technologies used in the military sector have been successfully translated into the civilian sector; hHighlights that the deployment of an intelligent transport system and the uptake of Galileo-related technologies represent one of the most challenging opportunities ahead for the civilian transport sector; considers, therefore, that future revisions of the Action Plan should ultimately explore the possibility for civil transport to exploit military responses to those challenges, for instance in the field of cybersecuritytherefore, it is necessary to allocate additional funding.