Marjan ŠAREC

What Marjan ŠAREC has said (4)

• “53:06 – 16:55:00): Thank you colleagues. I would like to express my support to this report, which rightly recognizes that Europe security, competitiveness, and technological leadership are increasingly interconnected. Strengthening investment in defense research, innovation, and industrial capacity is no longer optional; it is a strategic necessity in today's geopolitical environment. The European Competitiveness Fund must become a real driver of resilience, innovation, and European strategic autonomy. In an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape, the EU must be able to act, innovate, and defend its interests with reduced external dependencies, especially in critical technologies and supply chains. In this regard, it is essential that we ensure a strong focus on the European defense technological and industrial base and on reinforcing our industrial capabilities within the Union. At the same time, we should further strengthen the role of European industry, especially SMEs and startups, which are key sources of innovation, agility, and technological breakthroughs. Their meaningful participation must be facilitated through simpler procedures and better access to funding. I also intend to table amendments to further prioritize EU industry as well as to place greater emphasis on SMEs, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence, all of which are decisive for our future security, competitiveness, and strategic autonomy. By investing strategically in these areas, we can ensure that Europe remains secure, technologically sovereign, and capable of acting as a credible global actor. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending · "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you. In my capacity as the standing rapporteur for Montenegro, I would just shortly ask, in your view, what are the main challenges or bottlenecks along this corridor in the western Balkan regions such as border crossings, railway interoperability standards, logistics connections and multimodality. And what concrete measures is the Commission taking to address them, and how is it ensured that the Western Balkan countries, which are not yet EU member states, can actively participate in the planning, financing and implementation of this corridor in line with the principles of Ten-t governance? Thank you very much.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. Where I come from, it's no exception. Certain tourist destinations, as well as the capital, are already facing over tourism. It is important that we look for solutions both to reduce seasonality and to address the high visitor pressure by finding ways to spread tourist flows towards rural and less visited areas. What I see as crucial here is that the development of these areas should never happen in ad hoc way. It unavoidably brings with it many other needs, from water resources, road and utility infrastructure to the question of how to integrate public transport and more sustainable forms of mobility. Tourism must therefore be planned carefully and comprehensively so that it remains sustainable in the long term, environmentally responsible and beneficial for the people who live there. In some places, this can even mean bringing new life to areas that have declined, for example due to industrial collapse. My question would be rather philosophical how we could unify and to achieve this. I know that tourism is by uh is there are states responsibility but how we we can get more unified with dealing with these issues. Thank you very much.”
  EU strategy for tourism development
• “(17:32:58 – 17:35:51): Thank you, chair, colleagues. A more transparent and perform dated EU budget is not just desirable, it's necessary. Citizens rightly expect us to show clearly how EU funds are spent and what result do they deliver, especially in key sectors such as transport. For us, this proposal is particularly relevant. EU transport policy relies heavily on EU funding, whether for infrastructure, decarbonization, or innovation. A simpler and more coherent performance framework can help ensure that these investments deliver real impact, better connectivity, greener mobility, and stronger competitiveness across the union. I would particularly like to highlight several elements that we strongly support. The move towards a single harmonized system of indicators is an important step forward as it should improve competitive comparability across programs and strengthen our ability to assess results. The effort to reduce administrative burden is also welcome, especially for smaller stakeholders and companies that often face disproportionate challenges in accessing new funding. Finally, the creation of a single access point for funding opportunities has the potential to significantly improve transparency and make EU funds more accessible. At the same time, we need to ensure that simplification is real, not only formal. There is a clear risk that new horizontal requirements and reporting structures could, in practice, create additional complexity for beneficiaries. This is particularly relevant in the transport sector where projects are often large scale, cross border, and technically complex. We should also ensure that the framework leaves sufficient flexibility for sector specific needs. Transport investments differ significantly from rail infrastructure to urban mobility, and the 1 size fits all approach to indicators may not always capture capture their real impact. For these reasons, I intend to table a number of targeted amendments. This will focus in particular on ensuring genuine simplification and the real reduction of of administrative burden, safeguarding flexibility for sector specific programs, and improving the clarity and usability of performance indicators. In conclusion, this proposal is a step in the right direction If we manage to strike the right balance between harmonization and flexibility, this framework can become a strong tool to improve the effectiveness of EU spending.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds