Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Future of CEF Transport
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, investment, project of common interest, public-private partnership, regional and local authorities, sustainable development, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2018054EN.01001401.xml










13.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/14





Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Future of CEF Transport
(2018/C 054/04)












Rapporteur:



Ximo PUIG I FERRER (ES/PES), President of the Regional Government of Valencia









POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) with a regional perspective









1.


recalls that the European Union integration process has been characterised from the outset by a constant increase in economic, political and social relations and partnerships between its constituent territories. Transport is a major contributor to economic and social prosperity in the EU by generating trade, fostering economic growth and providing millions of jobs. A modern European transport infrastructure policy supports the achievement of major European Union objectives as defined in the Europe 2020 Strategy, ‘the White Paper on Transport 2011’ and, the 10 priorities of the Juncker Commission, such as the smooth functioning of the internal market and the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion;












2.


recognises that the CEF, which was adopted in 2013 as a common legal framework and a funding instrument for the transport sector, is a cornerstone in the development of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and, therefore, in the overall progress made towards a establishing a firmer EU vision. The CEF is designed as an essential co-financing instrument for setting up and completing TEN-T infrastructure and services. It must therefore be coupled with social well-being, cohesion, job creation (1), economic growth and environmental sustainability (2), which is why the costs incurred by a Europe without the TEN-T and the CEF would be greater than the funding that is currently allocated to them (3);












3.


welcomes the efforts made during the current mid-term evaluation, in terms of openness, participation and gathering stakeholder proposals, as well as consulting with the Committee of the Regions (CoR) (4);












4.


believes that, as part of the mid-term evaluation of the CEF, the maintenance and development of its foundations and its importance in terms competitiveness should be promoted. Europe’s social capital and European territorial cohesion should also be improved, as well as the idea of shared European citizenship with the free movement of people and goods, which is the essence of the European project. This development requires a review of budgetary allocations for procedures, criteria and project selection procedures, and the management, monitoring and evaluation of these;












5.


also warns that since their adoption in 2013, some of the considerations raised by the CoR are still valid (5). Some of the areas for improvement relate to insufficient budgetary allocation, doubts over the coordination of the CEF and other funds, the procedural complexity of the instrument, the inadequate role granted to local and regional authorities and the lack of subsidiarity at the various bodies for planning and implementing co-financing projects (6);












6.


points out that the European Union, in its guidelines for developing the trans-European transport network, recalls that integrated policies are important, pointing out the need to ensure ‘the accessibility and connectivity of all regions in the Union, including the remote, insular and outermost regions’; hence the CoR calls for these regions, regretfully excluded from the main network, to become eligible for motorways of the sea measures;












7.


points out to the European Commission that the world is witnessing radical changes in the relationship between economic development and the region, as well the emergence of a new type of urban and macro-regional system operating at global and local level at the same time (7). That is why any reform of the CEF should take into account the debates on how European strategic infrastructure and transport can contribute to reshoring industrial activity to Europe (8); how global geopolitical risk affects the shortening of value chains; the importance of quality regional government management bodies; the process of technological integration and the growth of interstate regional inequalities (the regions have recently seen divergence in GDP per capita and interstate cohesion, coupled with the process of convergence between Member States (9)). At the same time, in terms of negative dynamics, it should be noted that the budgetary adjustment processes have forced the regions to cut investment, particularly in sectors linked to transport infrastructure (10). Moreover, while in 2014 public investment recovered slightly at central government level — through use of the public deficit — the decline continued at subnational level (11) which has increased regional disparities and reinforced centralisation. The future revision of the CEF must consider this new context as well as measures that exploit the potential of the strategic European transport infrastructure to reduce the risks identified in the industrial and geopolitical domains, compensate for the increase in regional disparities and reverse the negative trends in public investment;





Funding









8.


recognises the Commission’s willingness to allocate funding to the TEN-T through the CEF. The initial budget allocated of EUR 33,2 billion was a significant financial commitment; moreover, the fact that the mechanism intends to rely on capital and the private initiative is an important aspect in terms of co-financing (12);












9.


regrets, however, the budget restrictions suffered as a result of the adjustment policies implemented throughout the last decade. The reductions made during the early years of its implementation could put the objectives set for the 2020 period, 2030 (core network) or 2050 (global network) out of reach;












10.


points out, in this regard, and as part of the review of the multiannual programme, that the objectives set out by Regulations (EU) No 1345/2013 and (EU) No 1216/2013 are binding community objectives;












11.


calls, therefore, for a full exploration of opportunities to increase the current allocation — with particular awareness of local needs as articulated by local, metropolitan and regional stakeholders — to improve the coordination of the various funds (EFSI, CEF, Cohesion Fund) or other instruments proposed by the EIB — ensuring that the CEF is not reduced in favour of the EFSI once again — and for clarification of the timetable for specific calls — and for this to be done in compliance with the subsidiarity principle (bottom-up approach). These calls could be published at the beginning of the financial perspectives period and will enable better planning, thereby allowing stakeholders to anticipate their publication;












12.


stresses that funding from the CEF and other related facilities should not compete with the EFSI or with its market-based approach, which aims to attract new funds and to mobilise inactive capital. Consequently considers the EFSI and the CEF to have different objectives and believes therefore that they should not be considered as interchangeable. However, in cases where there may be synergies between the two funds, an optimal mix of these resources should be sought in order to stimulate investment in the EU;












13.


also recommends, when applying Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union (Brexit), that the Commission implement the legislative and political instruments needed to ensure a sufficient budgetary allocation to the TEN-T transport policy, with provisional and flexible appropriations which can be topped up if necessary;












14.


points out that any delay in implementing the elements of the TEN-T network will lead to reduced growth opportunities for the regions participating in the project and will limit the impact of interregional network cooperation;












15.


considers that, given the need to increase the activity of the cohesion countries, and in order to maintain complementarity between the CEF and the Cohesion Fund, the budget allocation for the cohesion countries should be maintained;





Selection, project management and governance









16.


calls on the Commission to make a determined effort to improve the selection, project management, governance and monitoring of the activities linked to the CEF, through measures such as:






—


making the calls for proposals more predictable;










—


amending the non-binding nature, under Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, of the implementation of the priority projects set out in the aforementioned Part I of Annex I;










—


further developing the concept of ‘European added value’ as a criterion for awarding projects, taking into account the particular situation of the outermost regions;










—


simplifying application procedures, as well as providing specialised technical assistance for setting up and managing projects;










—


developing two- or three-step mechanisms that allow the submission of simplified proposals during the first phase, with more detailed proposals only being required during the second or third phase, when there is greater financial security;










—


designing a clear and transparent methodology, through the use of public criteria for the selection and signing of projects;










—


including shared project management criteria, as well as consulting with the regions, at the project evaluation phase;










—


clarifying the processes and criteria for monitoring and supervising co-financed projects;










—


developing information policy principles for all stages of project selection, approval and implementation;










—


strengthening the role of European forums of trans-European corridors in order to improve their decision-making capacity on the development of strategic infrastructure, which is essential to the proper functioning and the movement of flows through corridors such as cross-border sections, bottlenecks, urban-port nodes (13) and missing links (14), among others;










—


keeping the calls for proposals open for longer;
















17.


considers that financing the TEN-T by means of an instrument shared with energy and telecommunications is artificial. Transport policy has been laid out clearly, and so the CoR recommends that it have its own instruments;












18.


warns that Member States, especially those receiving money from the Cohesion Fund, must 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 absorbing 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 equal candidates in relation to other Member States when applying for the calls for proposals for EU co-financing;












19.


considers that while CEF financing of transport projects must primarily be based on subsidies, loans, guarantees or own funds could also be suitable;





The role of the regions and cities









20.


highlights the high level of responsibility that the regional and local authorities have in implementing and monitoring public investments in general. In 2014, the subnational governments of the OECD were responsible for 40 % of public spending, 50 % of public procurement, 59 % of public investment and 63 % of staff expenditure (15);












21.


in this regard, it should be highlighted that the European Union shows varying degrees of trust in the institutions depending on the level of local or regional government (usually greater the closer the institution is to the people) (16). Today, the public place greater trust in subnational governments than in higher-level public authorities (17). Moreover, the regions and local governments are best placed to identify needs and resources, public-private cooperation is easier to integrate at this level, and management is more likely to be held accountable and transparent. Therefore, the next review of the CEF should be approached with a view to the ‘co-production’ of the TEN-T by multilevel administrations (18);












22.


in this context, the Commission should ensure that the Member States’ infrastructure plans include the TEN-T objectives, giving priority to projects by Member States that are in line with the TEN-T;












23.


calls, therefore on the Commission to decentralise project selection, management, monitoring and supervision procedures, by involving the regions to a greater extent in the CEF, with the following measures:






—


abolishing the need for the state’s final approval when signing projects (in favour of a criterion that is based more on subsidiarity), thus enabling the regions to sign the projects;










—


as a result, including local and regional authorities among the parties authorised under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013, authorising them to present and agree on the submission of proposals;










—


the diversity of the competences held by the regions, depending on the constitutional order of each Member State, should enable the regions to take part, with no restrictions, in the European Fora on the TEN corridors. These forums should provide tools for both vertical coordination between governmental levels and horizontal coordination between subnational governments;










—


implementing cooperation between the CEF and TEN-T, with new territorial strategies such as the macro-regional strategies (Baltic, 2009; Danube, 2010, Ionian-Adriatic, 2014 and the Alps, 2015), and other geographically based initiatives, with the measures taken being coordinated with instruments such as the European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) and forums such as Nordregio, VASAB, etc. In addition, in areas where macroregions are developing and these have strategies and technical documents on transport and logistics services, it is recommended that these also be included;










—


including the regions in defining and drafting work programmes, in the run up to the calls for tenders;









Local/regional issues in relation to global issues









24.


stresses the overall benefits to the daily lives of EU citizens deriving from the completion of TEN-T. In order to raise the profile of the whole project at European level and facilitate European transport strategies, recommends that the public authorities brand the whole TEN-T network uniformly across the EU, identifying the infrastructures of the core and comprehensive networks, nodes and corridors, and recommends that the public authorities give special treatment to the nodes in the network as access points with clear, well-specified links to secondary and tertiary transport networks. In this regard, suggests that Member States and Regions take TEN-T into account in the design and implementation of their local road and rail transport flows, with a view to providing an integrated perspective that results in greater and increased mobility for all citizens — a critical factor in social inclusion and environmental protection; similarly, recommends that specific consideration be given to island regions to ensure that suitable provision is made for the necessary air and sea connections, ensuring freight and passenger access to the core network under the least burdensome conditions possible;












25.


points to the need for the necessary infrastructure to be established, at both local and regional level, in regions where there are problems involving railways, to ensure that they can make use of rail transport under similar conditions to those existing in the other Member States;












26.


in relation to this, the issues associated with disseminating information on achievements and the transparency of objectives and results should be examined in detail. The CEF and TEN-T maps should be brought closer to citizens through information points, infographics and documents;












27.


points out that there is currently a lack of effective coordination and linkage of key transport investments identified in strategy documents at European, national and regional level. Regional authorities were not included in the management and implementation structure of the CEF, which limits the opportunities for assessing the added value, coherence and complementarity of planned investments using different sources of funding. A coordinating function could be provided via the EU’s macroregional strategies;












28.


points out that available funding should be concentrated primarily on the priority primary core network, taking into account the possibility of strengthening multimodal connections (port and rail). Any remaining funds could be used for secondary but robust support to projects of a smaller technical and budgetary scale, which have fewer opportunities to access additional private funding (due to their lower short-term economic returns), provided that they have a strong ‘European added value’, for example natural connections with the core network or those that complement it with elements of regional or interregional importance, on the condition that they are strategic, of structural importance and can be carried out in the short term. This should be developed as part of a future two-way review framework: projects that contribute to creating a greater flow of goods and passengers via the priority corridors and projects that add clear value in terms of accessibility, connectivity and territorial cohesion;












29.


consideration should be given to the ‘external’ dimension of the TEN-T, particularly in relation to third countries and areas of strategic cooperation such as the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea Region, the Eastern Neighbourhood, the current and future European Economic Area and other regions of particular economic and geopolitical interest;





Priorities









30.


endorses the three transport objectives and percentages for CEF, set out in Part IV of Annex I. Calls, however, for an amendment to Article 10 of the Regulation, which deals with funding rates, advocating for an increase in the latter for priority urban nodes, ports, maritime transport, and multimodal (such as combined rail and road transport networks) and ‘last mile’ platforms and connections;












31.


proposes moving forward with the definition of a common technical standard for eligible CEF projects, with a view to achieving the harmonisation of the speed, performance, reliability and UIC gauge of the TEN-T corridors within the EU, as well as of standards governing their alternative fuel charging stations;












32.


considers that cross-border transport must be a priority: these parts of the network are of least interest to the Member States and undeniably provide European added value;












33.


proposes that the EU Urban Agenda organise a new partnership on transport nodes alongside the existing partnership on urban mobility. It would aim to analyse TEN-T networks crossing through urban and metropolitan nodes and their integration into urban settings, urban logistics, and, in particular, ‘first and last mile’ projects, as reaffirmed by the European Parliament’s resolution of 19 January 2017 on logistics and multimodal transport in the TEN-T corridors (19). As this Resolution indicates, urban nodes are where a large part of transport modes are located and where transhipments and last-mile distributions take place — as they are key to the whole logistic chains and it is here that the conditions necessary for connecting energy and transport networks to the digital space should be established;












34.


in addition, consideration should be given to strengthening territorial cohesion through the full introduction of the UIC gauge on the EU railway network, emphasising the importance of cross-border routes — thus making the internal market for railway rolling stock more competitive for example — and territorial balance should be strengthened to include accessibility and connectivity criteria in all regions of the Union in the post-2020 period;





Sustainability in transport









35.


recalls the vital importance that environmental sustainability has in the CEF and consequently calls for an increase in funding for this thematic area, in relation to mitigating the effects of climate change. Therefore calls for greater support, through key project allocation mechanisms, for instruments linked to multimodality in transport, such as ‘Motorways of the Sea’, — which have major effects on decarbonisation — as well as other projects along the same lines that promote economic, social and environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation: extending electric rail and road alternative fuel recharging networks and harnessing the potential of digital technologies in transport and measures for the adaptation of port facilities. It also refers to its opinion on ‘A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility’ (20);












36.


the review of the CEF should take into account the new consumption trends recorded in the circular economy, in mobility and in production patterns.












37.


proposes expediting support measures for sustainable transport (and examining the possibilities created by measures such as the European eco-bonus), potential taxation on infrastructure and the review of the Eurovignette Directive; the various revenues collected could feed into the CEF budget;












38.


points out that when analysing the detailed arrangements of the TEN-T network, account needs to be taken of sustainable development in social, economic and environmental terms. In this respect, links in regions that face diverse problems, such as their remote or island location or economic, demographic or migratory imbalances, should not be neglected;





Brussels, 10 October 2017.


The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ




(1)  TEN-T Corridors: Forerunners of a forward-looking European Transport System (2016), by P. Balázs, P. Cox, C. Trautmann, P. Wojciechowski, L. Brinkhorst, M. Grosch, and K. Peijs: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/116220/tent-issues-papers.pdf

(2)  TEN- Corridors: Forerunners of a forward-looking European Transport System, 2016.

(3)  The cost of non-completion of the TEN-T (2016), Fraunhofer Institut für System und Innovationsforschung (ISI): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2015-06-fraunhofer-cost-of-non-completion-of-the-ten-t.pdf

(4)  Mid-term evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (MCE): https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/mid-term-evaluation-connecting-europe-facility-cef

(5)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Connecting Europe Facility (CoR 648/2012), adopted at the 96th plenary session on 18 and 19 July 2012.

(6)  Results of the OECD-CoR consultation of subnational governments. Infrastructure planning and investment across levels of government: current challenges and possible solutions (2016):
http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/brochures/Documents/Results%20of%20the%20OECD-CoR%20consultation%20of%20sub-national%20governments/2794-brochureLR.pdf

(7)  Macro-regional strategies in changing times (2016) and The State of European Cities 2016: Cities leading the way to a better future (2016).

(8)  Eurofound. ERM annual report 2016: Globalisation slowdown? Recent evidence of offshoring and reshoring in Europe (2017), J. Hurley, D. Storrie and E. Perruffo: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2017/erm-annual-report-2016-globalisation-slowdown-recent-evidence-of-offshoring-and-reshoring-in-europe

(9)  ‘OECD Regional Outlook 2016. Productive regions for inclusive societies’ (2016): http://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-regional-outlook-2016-9789264260245-en.htm

(10)  ‘OECD Regions at a Glance 2016’ (2016) (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-regions-at-a-glance-2016_reg_glance-2016-en)

(11)  Chapter 2 ‘Using the fiscal levers to escape the low-growth traps’: https://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/Using-the-fiscal-levers-to-escape-the-low-growth-trap.pdf

(12)  Assessment of Connecting Europe Facility: in-depth analysis (2016), by J. Papí, M. Sanz and Blomeyer, R. (2016): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/572677/IPOL_IDA(2016)572677_EN.pdf

(13)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Regeneration of Port Cities and Port Areas, adopted at the 121st plenary session, 8 and 9 February 2017.

(14)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Missing transport links in border regions (CdR 4294/2016), adopted at the 121st plenary session, 8 and 9 February 2017.

(15)  See footnote 10.

(16)  ‘Political trust and multilevel government’, J. Muñoz, in Handbook on Political Trust (2017) edited by S. Zmerli & T. W. G. van der Meer: http://doi.org/10.4337/9781782545118

(17)  Question QA8a Standard Eurobarometer 86 (November, 2016): http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/STANDARD/surveyKy/2137

(18)  ‘Europe as a multilevel federation’ (2017), M. Keating, in Journal of European Public Policy, 24 (4), El poder de lo próximo: las virtudes del municipalismo (2016) J. Subirats; Las ciudades ante el cambio de era: la nueva gobernanza urbana: actores e instrumentos (2016) J.M. Pascual and J. Subirats.

(19)  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2016-0384+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

(20)  COTER-VI/021.