EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/125

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Connecting Europe facility’

2012/C 277/12

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— recalls the importance of the European policy in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions and contribute to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion within the EU;

— supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunications sector;

— welcomes its focus on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections as well as the introduction of innovative financial instruments, in order to ensure the highest leverage effect of public spending and delivering higher added value for EU citizens;

— calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

— considers that the implementation should also be in line with the objectives of both the Europe 2020 strategy and the Cohesion policy, and in complementarity and consistency with the Cohesion Policy Funds;

— insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions whilst taking into account the specific territorial circumstances of the EU;

— asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10 bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including national quotas applying to Member States.

Rapporteur Ivan ŽAGAR (SI/EPP), Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica Reference documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility COM(2011) 665 final/3 – 2011/0302 (COD) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks COM(2011)659 final/2 – 2011/0301 (COD)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General assessment

1. recalls that the European policy of transport, telecommunications and digital facilities should be conceived as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions, the free movement of goods and persons, the integration of the Single Market and economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU and its connection to the rest of the world;

2. welcomes the potential role of the Connecting Europe Facility to boost growth and jobs and make Europe more competitive (1) and supports the focus of the Commission on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections;

3. supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a funding instrument, for the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors;

4. calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

5. calls for a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing able to attract the private sector financing which is nowadays necessary to achieve the EU's objectives;

6. considers that the implementation of the CEF should also contribute to the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives and should be interconnected with the Cohesion Policy Funds so that they complement and are consistent with each other;

7. welcomes the Commission's proposals to earmark EUR 10 billion from Cohesion Fund in the CEF to support coordinated transport infrastructure projects implementation on the TEN-T core network in the Cohesion Member States; stresses the need to respect, to the greatest possible extent, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund, in order to ensure favourable financial support conditions, as provided by the Cohesion Fund, for all types of eligible projects, including road cross-border projects;

8. considers that CEF projects should follow the priorities of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth – the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

9. underlines the difficulty for many Member States of developing by themselves complex cross-border transport infrastructure projects, while at EU level there is a critical mass of demand for more synergies between various financing programmes and policy sectors which must ensure the highest leverage effect of the public spending that carries higher added value for the EU citizens;

Legal framework

CEF - General context

10. supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunication sectors;

11. underlines that in the framework of transport projects, we should consider their inter-linkages with other forms of transport concerning hubs, e.g. air transport, the underground/metro, etc.; access to a fast broadband network and services must be provided, particularly in areas that are not commercially attractive, such as low population-density rural areas, where ICT can make it easier to provide public services and contribute to preserving the rural population and to territorial cohesion;

12. would like the treatment of regions with a different development index to be clarified so that they reflect specific territorial circumstances of the EU, including regions with severe and permanent demographic and natural handicaps and the outermost dimension, and cover Europe's regions in a balanced way;

Sectoral objectives

13. supports the efforts to promote clean and sustainable transport systems, especially rail and maritime transport, which are effective and competitive modes that must be equipped with proper infrastructure and organised services. In order to ensure that these sustainable modes of transport function smoothly, it is also necessary to develop inland logistical hubs providing optimum intermodal exchange and overall system efficiency;

14. feels that due account must be taken of the particular circumstances of a range of areas in the EU, including regions in the new Member States where infrastructure has to date been poorly developed and has lacked adequate funding, especially where this brings major regional added value, for instance for cross-border transport;

15. stresses the need to promote the interconnection of energy networks and the functioning of the internal energy market in the EU as well as to acknowledge the EU's energy independency as one of the key priorities of this instrument and to bolster the security of supply;

16. stresses the fact that the investments in the telecommunication broadband network and digital service infrastructure platforms are essential to achieving the EU's Digital Agenda and contributing to the EU 2020 objectives as well as to delivering European public services;

Budgetary issues

17. welcomes the creation of CEF instrument and its financial resources which must not be called into question, in order to ensure the CEF's effectiveness and leverage effect on other sources of public and private finance. But warns against any attempt that could be to the detriment of the Structural Funds;

18. is concerned, owing to the state on the financial markets, about the expected impact and leverage effect of the CEF funding measures on the regional and local public financing planned for infrastructure investment;

19. insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions, and takes into account the quality and added-value of CEF funded projects in transport, energy and telecommunications networks for the weakest regions, including those suffering from permanent geographical and natural handicaps, very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions, with due consideration for effectiveness and the leverage effect of the proposed projects;

20. asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10bn, to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund, respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including the national quotas applying to Members States;

21. stresses the fact that eligibility rules shall be extended concerning administrative costs;

Forms of financing and financial provisions

22. supports a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing in order to attract private sector financing; therefore requests that administrative costs be added to eligible expenses so that the objectives can be achieved more effectively and stresses that new funding sources shall by no means replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it;

23. welcomes the introduction of innovative financial instruments, particularly the use of EU project bonds, which will attract private investors and stimulate public-private partnerships in the EU. Considering the state of financial markets, the guarantee for these bonds should lie with the Commission;

24. asks the Commission to foresee capacity building measures for the use of innovative financial instruments, in order to support participation of public authorities who do not have the required expertise, especially at regional and local level; welcomes the adoption on 6 July 2012 of the Regulation launching the 2012-2013 pilot phase of the EU project bonds initiative aimed at mobilising up to EUR 4,5 billion in private sector financing for key strategic infrastructure projects (2); supports that if successful, the pilot phase will be followed by an operational phase during 2014-2020 under the EU's Connecting Europe Facility;

Grants

25. welcomes working programmes as instruments using the form of grants used in case of particular measures;

26. states that eligibility of expenditure, as defined by CEF, can be a limiting factor in implementation of projects; therefore it should be modified in terms of eligibility dates and particular items of eligible costs, such as preparation costs, not recoverable VAT, land purchase;

27. is concerned about the fact that all proposals for grants shall be subject to agreement solely by Member States. Therefore the Committee of the Regions asks for local and regional authorities to be part of the process of selection when appropriate and according to their legal competences;

28. stresses that, considering the current situation faced by local and regional authorities, beneficiaries will not be able to start their works in time. Consequently, provisions concerning cancellation of the projects shall not be too restrictive, and therefore allow a three years period instead of two years proposed by the European Commission;

Procurement

29. recalls that the 10 billion Euros to be ring-fenced from the Cohesion Fund shall be managed under the rules of direct management and not under the ‘first come first served principle’; stresses that a ‘first come, first served’ approach may risk accentuating the imbalance of the EU Cohesion countries which face more difficulties regarding administrative, human and financial conditions which may become an obstacle for some Member States and Regions to present mature projects;

30. proposes that the rules for the eligibility of expenditure of the EUR 10bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund should be in line with the regulation applying to this Fund;

Financial instruments

31. asks that, without prejudice to the issues of competence, the financial support of projects beneath the level of trans- European networks must comply with the principle of subsidiarity;

Programming, implementation and control

32. supports multiannual work programmes that shall be communicated to all parties concerned. In line with the principles of multilevel governance, preparation of work programmes should involve partners at all levels;

Multi-level governance

33. stresses that local and regional authorities are legally responsible for many of the areas covered by the CEF and are directly affected by the proposed measures to finance Trans-European transport, energy and telecommunication infrastructures; it is therefore imperative that the principles of multilevel governance are respected to ensure balanced territorial development;

34. considers that the CEF proposal does not appear to raise any issue regarding its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity (3); recalls that, due to their scale and effects, CEF projects may involve trans-national dimension and therefore they have to be achieved at the most appropriate level: EU, national, regional or local;

35. insists that the regional and local authorities and other relevant stakeholders need to be included in the decision-making and planning process within the Member States concerning the CEF's indicative list of projects that could potentially be financed;

36. insists that local and regional authorities should be informed as early as possible of the CEF proposals and be actively supported to integrate them in project preparation and territorial strategies for development. It is also crucial that all stakeholders in the individual regions cooperate in the preparation of future CEF projects and their implementation;

37. is of the opinion that strategic measures to encourage regional and national authorities need to be developed to prepare the lists of proposed investments in the fields of energy and telecommunication by the end of 2012, as only this way will enough time be left for individual Member States to prepare their project documentation;

Management and implementation

38. stresses that new technologies (e.g. infrastructure for alternative fuels) have higher entry barriers than traditional infrastructure such as road and rail and therefore grants shall be enabled up to 50 % instead of 20 %;

39. stresses that the implementation of the CEF by the European Commission's executive agency as management authority should be carried out in close cooperation with other relevant public authorities. Additional costs for establishment and operation of the agency should be avoided;

40. underlines that the rules regulating CEF funds need to be defined, when individual partners from different Member States are not able to reach an agreement on the implementation of an individual project;

41. consequently suggests that the EC analyse the usefulness of the EGTC in order to cope with potential difficulties in the implementation of cross-border projects due to different national legislations and the combination of different financial sources defined in various regulations;

Compliance with other EU policies – Cohesion Policy

42. highlights the need to ensure a coherent compatibility between projects financed through Structural and Cohesion funds and CEF and the expected impact of the CEF on the smaller projects;

43. asks the Commission to provide clear measures that guarantee coordination and compatibility between the regulations applying to Structural Funds, especially when it comes to the drafting of the Common Strategic Framework and Partnership Contracts, but also concerning the eligibility rules and possible overlapping of funded projects;

44. draws attention to the impact of the CEF on the territorial planning and regional and local development strategies and supports capacity-building measures to support regional and local authorities to be best prepared for being able to put forward mature projects to be financed through CEF;

45. insists that the operational programmes and regulations for the 2014-2020 programme period are approved on time, so that project implementation could start at the beginning of 2014;

General and final provisions

46. supports the Commission's proposal to move towards a more results-oriented approach by using clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators agreed in advance. A few clear and reliable indicators should be defined. Indicators should be general, fair, proportional and based on the principle of equal treatment. Strategic planning instruments will therefore need to be available to LRAs with the purpose of avoiding additional administrative burden concerning reporting, adding a need for evaluation that includes impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion;

47. asks that Member States make more use of the technical help that is available for operational programmes in order to improve the capacities of local and regional bodies and other participants for drawing of EU funds. In the framework of the CEF instrument it is especially important that the less developed Member States also prepare quality projects with the help of technical assistance resources and can, thus, be an equal candidate in comparison to other Member States when applying for the calls for proposals for EU co-financing;

48. seeks a more detailed definition with regard to preparing project documentation, preparing projects, initiating procedures and the applications of individual participants (division of tasks between national bodies and regional and local authorities) in the framework of the CEF instrument.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2011) 665 final/3

Amendment 1

Add a new recital after recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment

Reason

Social and territorial cohesion in Europe depends largely on the EU's ability to achieve balance between different areas and keep them well-connected. When structuring Europe's regions around major, environmentally-sustainable transport networks, account must be taken not only of the need to link up areas that are already developed: communication links must also themselves provide a focus that boosts the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Implementing Connecting Europe facilities must also be a key factor in territorial spatial planning and balance between regions.

Amendment 2

Article 3(a)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors. contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors. […] […]

Reason

See point 12.

Amendment 3

Article 5(2)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme. The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme. […] […]

Reason

See point 22.

Amendment 4

Article 7(2)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation: In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation: (a) actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (a) actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (b) studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (c) actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (d) actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (e) actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (f) actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock; actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; (g) programme support actions. actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock; programme support actions. […] […]

Amendment 5

Article 7(4)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation.

Reason

Under Article 2(9) of the proposal for a regulation, public bodies may also be the (direct) beneficiaries of financial assistance. This is to be welcomed. The resources should also be available to Member States and regions as financial support for broadband expansion schemes.

Amendment 6

Article 8(2)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014]. Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014].

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 7

Article 8(6)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall not be an eligible cost. Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall be an eligible cost.

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 8

Article 8(7)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment VAT shall not be an eligible cost. VAT shall be an eligible cost.

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 9

Article 9(1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States. Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States.

Reason

See point 27.

Amendment 10

Article 10(2)(b)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment with regard to grants for works: (i) rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections; with regard to grants for works: (i) rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections; […] […]

Reason

In certain countries, such as Spain, a greater effort must be made to meet the European rail interoperability standards, bearing in mind the situation at the outset, with a different gauge and a different electrification system inter alia. In this respect it is considered essential to prioritise measures that would make it possible to effectively make a start on interoperability with the emergence of new operators from the business side of the transport and logistics sectors who would have to use the networks being created, supply of state-of-the-art rolling stock, vehicles and equipment, etc. Thus it is felt that the introduction, already well underway, of technical solutions such as the ‘third rail’ (three rails per track, allowing for two gauges) on existing routes, will create interoperable transport services without having to wait for the completion of corridors specifically designed to these standards, which would mean such services not beginning until after 2020. Such actions should be seen as ‘seeding’ initiatives towards achieving the full interoperability of the future corridors which will be completed over the longer term, and should therefore be given priority in the financing instruments. One solution might be to give these actions the same status as the cross-border sections. In any case, this proposal is in line with point 17 of the policy recommendations, since in railway terms Spain is one of ‘the weakest regions and regions with the most problems’ because of its different track gauge. It also fits in with point 26, because within the conventional rail network, Spain belongs to the group of ‘regions lagging behind’ on account of its different track gauge.

Amendment 11

Article 10(4)(a)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 50 % of the eligible cost; actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed % of the eligible cost;

Reason

A significant financial investment is needed to roll out broadband networks in sparsely populated areas, and economic operators have little or no incentive to extend their commercial activities to these areas. The electronic communications sector will therefore find it difficult to achieve the EU Digital Agenda's goals for broadband access on the basis of the proposed co-financing rate.

Amendment 12

Article 10(5)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11. Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11.

Reason

There is a need to introduce differentiated treatment for both less developed regions and those with severe and permanent demographic and natural handicaps, as all these criteria affect regional development, and must therefore be taken equally into account when assessing co-financing rates. The European Commission has accordingly included specific provisions to ensure that special attention is addressed to the specific difficulties of regions with these particular territorial characteristics in its proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund for the next programming period, on the basis of Article 174 TFEU.

Amendment 13

Article 11(2)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, greatest possible priority shall be given to projects respecting the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund

Reason

See point 7.

Amendment 14

Article 12(1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within one year following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid. The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid.

Reason

This will ensure greater flexibility needed to help beneficiaries to overcome implementation constraints.

Amendment 15

Article 12(2)(c)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action. following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action.

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 16

Article 12(3)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within two years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed. The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed.

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 17

Article 12(4)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within a given timeframe. Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within .

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 18

Article 17(1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2). The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2).

Reason

See point 32.

Amendment 19

Article 17 (new point 8)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment

Reason

New technologies (e.g. infrastructure for alternative fuels) have higher entry barriers than traditional infrastructure such as road and rail. They are part of the new Ten-T guidelines, but lack funding clauses in the CEF. Such projects are more difficult to finance. On the other hand, they promote the oil independence and the goals of the White Paper of transportation to cut by half conventional fuel vehicles in cities by 2030. As such, we feel it is not consistence that innovation in transport will be limited to 20 % grants, the lowest of all modes.

Amendment 20

Article 17 (new point 9)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment

Amendment 21

Article 26(1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures.

Reason

See point 46.

Brussels, 19 July 2012. The President of the Committee of the Regions Mercedes BRESSO

(1) This role was highlighted by the Conclusions of the European Council of 28/29 June 2012 (page 11, ‘The contribution of European policies to growth’).

(2) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks.

(3) The CoR opinion on the CEF takes into account the consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network of the Committee of the Regions. The report of the consultation is available on the CoR website: http://extranet.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/Pages/default.aspx.