Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0066
Offentligt
1856419_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.2.2018
SWD(2018) 44 final/2
PART 2/2
CORRIGENDUM
Corrects the date of the document on the cover page.
Concerns all languages.
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
on the mid-term evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
{COM(2018) 66 final/2}
EN
EN
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
Contents
ANNEX 1. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROCESS TO
PREPARE THE EVALUATION
....................................................................................3
ANNEX 2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION RESULTS
....................................................6
ANNEX 3. ANALYTICAL MODELS USED IN PREPARING THE EVALUATION
..............44
ANNEX 4. LIST OF SECTORIAL OBJECTIVES AND THEIR RELATED KEY
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIS)
.....................................................................47
ANNEX 5. CEF INTERVENTION LOGIC
...........................................................................50
ANNEX 6. THE CEF DI PORTFOLIO INCLUDING THE LEGACY INSTRUMENTS FOR
3 SECTORS
................................................................................................................51
ANNEX 7. EU FUNDING OF INFRASTRUCTURES IN THE 2007-2013
MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK
...........................................................52
ANNEX 8: THE ROLE OF INEA
.........................................................................................57
ANNEX 9: PREDECESSOR PROGRAMME FOR TRANSPORT
.........................................60
ANNEX 10: PREDECESSOR PROGRAMMES FOR ENERGY: RELEVANCE OF
LEGACY PROJECTS FOR CEF
...................................................................................66
ANNEX 11: PREDECESSOR PROGRAMME FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
....................70
ANNEX 12: LIST OF SYNERGY ACTIONS
........................................................................71
ANNEX 13: CEF CALLS 2014-2016 ACTUAL EU SUPPORT PER SECTOR AND
COUNTRY
..................................................................................................................72
2
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0003.png
Annex 1. Procedural Information Concerning the Process to Prepare
the Evaluation
Lead DGs:
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), Directorate-General for
Energy (DG ENER) and Directorate-General for Communications networks, Content and Technology
(DG CNECT).
Agenda Planning number:
2017/MOVE+/003 Mid-term evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility
(CEF).
The requirement for the interim evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) derives from
Article 27(1) of Regulation 1316/2013/EC establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). This
stipulates that "no later than 31 December 2017, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member
States and beneficiaries concerned, shall prepare an evaluation report to be presented by the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council".
The results of the evaluation will be used for the implementation of the remaining part of the
programme, and to decide on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. In line with
Art.5 (3) of the CEF Regulation, following the evaluation referred to in Article 27(1), the European
Parliament and the Council may, upon a proposal by the Commission, transfer appropriations
between the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors of the allocation set out in Art. 5(1)
of the CEF Regulation. In this context, the evaluation will provide input and guidance to the mid-
term review of the overall MFF 2014-2020 and assist in preparing the next MFF.
An evaluation roadmap, summarising the design, purpose and scope of the Connecting Europe
Facility (CEF) interim evaluation, was published in May 2016
1
.
The Commission responsible DGs set out an evaluation methodology, timeline and scope, in line
with EU Better Regulation Guidelines and have assigned a contract (under a Framework contract of
DG BUDG) with an external consultant (PricewaterhouseCoopers) to prepare a study providing input
for the evaluation. The study was planned for a period of 13 months until September 2017. The
study has been guided by the Terms of Reference published by the Commission on 23 May 2016.
DG MOVE as lead-service in liaison with the other CEF DGs (ENER and CNECT) set up an Inter-Service
Group (ISG) gathering representatives of different Directorates-General (DG) of the Commission was
set up in early 2016 and held five meetings prior to submission of the Staff Working Document to
the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in May 2017.
The evaluation is composed by an overarching part addressing the progress towards the overall
objectives of the CEF Programme ("horizontal part"), and three sectorial parts addressing the
progress towards the objectives specific to the sectors of transport, energy, and telecommunications
("sectorial parts"). Overall, the evaluation takes stock of the progress of the implementation of the
CEF programme (in terms of budgetary years 2014, 2015, 2016 and the 1st semester of 2017) and
addresses the forms of financial assistance under the CEF (grants, financial instruments and
procurements) and accompanying measures such as programme support actions. Furthermore, an
assessment on the relative merits and achievements of financial assistance and accompanying
measures has been done, identifying in which areas/circumstances they could be improved.
A series of internal seminars with the external contractor were also organised between December
2016 and May 2017 during which the emerging interim evaluation results were presented and
discussed horizontally as well as at each of the sectorial levels.
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
1
See:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_move_003_mid_term_evaluation_connecting_europe_facility_en.pdf
3
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
The initial draft of the evaluation was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 12 June 2017.
Scrutiny took place at the Board meeting of 5 July 2017. Subsequently, a negative opinion was issued
by the board on 7 July 2017. A revised draft, taking the Board's comments into account was
submitted to the RSB on 13 October 2017. A positive opinion from the Board on the revised draft
was received on 31 October 2017.
In line with the letter from the Board Chair accompanying the positive opinion, the following
paragraphs detail the changes that were made to the document in response to both Board opinions.
Timing
The timing of this evaluation in relation with the ex-post evaluation of TEN-T has been further
explained under Chapter 4 "Methodology".
Legacy Projects
The text has been modified to indicate that the requirement of Article 27 to take evaluation results
concerning the long term impact of predecessor measures into account could not be met because
this data is not yet available. However, additional data on the implementation on the 2007-2013
programmes and on the importance of the legacy projects has been added in a new section of
Chapter 2 "Background to the initiative" entitled "Predecessor Programmes under the MFF 2007-
2013" as well in the annexes. The text now also indicates that the mid-term evaluation of
predecessor measures was taken into account in the IA carried out in 2011.
Synergies
Section 6.3.2.2. "Exploiting sectorial synergies" has been redrafted accordingly to better explain the
critical factors that have made it difficult to co-finance actions covering several sectors and thus to
achieve synergies at project level. Examples of potential project level synergies are provided as well
as obstacles that have weakened potential demand for such synergies.
The section on "The relevance of a common programme" in Section 6.1.1 "Relevance for EU
priorities and sectorial needs" was also modified accordingly, outlining the basis for the common
programme.
Role of the CEF in relation to other EU funding programmes
Section 6.2 on "Coherence" has been significantly modified strengthening the assessment
with ESIF and Horizon 2020 as well as providing a redrafting of the coherence of CEF with
EFSI.
Merits of direct management versus shared management
A box on the advantages of direct management for CEF was added in Section 6.4.2.
"Implementing and Managing CEF efficiently".
Role of INEA
An annex presenting the role of INEA has also been added.
4
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
It is important to note that there is as a separate legal obligation for an evaluation of INEA
(responsible for the implementation of CEF, H2020 and transport legacy programme), which has to
be carried out after 3 years of INEA's establishment. The evaluation of INEA will be carried out this
year.
Overall conclusions of the report / intermediate findings
Chapter 7 "Conclusions" has been entirely redrafted and better aligns with the intermediate
findings.
Financial instruments
The sections relevant to financial instruments have been reworked. Firstly, the Financial instruments
section of Chapter 5 "Implementation state of play" has been modified to provide a clearer summary
of the current situation. Secondly, Section 6.2 on "Coherence" now contains a redrafting of the
coherence of CEF with EFSI. Thirdly, a box outlining how to increase the effectiveness of financial
instruments has been added to Section 6.3.2.1 "Ensuring and accelerating investment."
Views of stakeholders / beneficiaries of the CEF
Regarding the question on the evidence base, all streams of evidence mentioned in the study are
taken into account in the SWD. The possible bias of many stakeholders being beneficiaries of the CEF
has been evidenced.
Summary information
Figures presenting an overview per sector and type of project have been added in Chapter 5
"Implementation state of play". Additional information on funding per Member State per sector has
been added in a new Annex 13.
5
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0006.png
Annex 2. Stakeholder Consultation Results
Stakeholder box: The stakeholder consultation on the CEF Mid-Term
Evaluation
332 complete responses collected out of which 24% are not
beneficiaries
14 position papers
Disaggregated analysis of questionnaire responses (according to stakeholder type and
number of replies)
Qualitative analysis of the position papers
Key stakeholder views (used in evaluation findings)
The stakeholder consultation relies on three pillars:
An online
Open Public Consultation
targeting both the general public ("general survey")
and CEF stakeholders ("technical survey"); in addition 14 position papers were received to
a dedicated functional mailbox.
A
stakeholder survey
including (i) interviews specific to the case studies, (ii) sectorial
interviews aiming at looking at relevance, complementarity of CEF operations as well as
testing some hypotheses drawn for the cases studies, and (iii) complementary thematic
focus groups, that will focus on specific evaluation topics/questions that are horizontal or
derived from the sectorial evaluations. In order to select the interviewees, PwC has
undertaken a mapping of the relevant stakeholders by sector;
A round of
interviews with key high-level/institutional stakeholders,
mainly covering
horizontal topics such as relevance and coherence of the programme, the efficiency of the
programme’s management and implementation as well as the EU added-value.
1. Overview of respondents
The objective of the consultation activities was two-fold: 1) to assess the
opinion
and the
perception
of the general public on the CEF Programme, ensuring transparency and
accountability, and 2) to collect more precise opinions from involved stakeholders. Indeed,
this consultation of the key stakeholders allowed interested parties to provide feedback and to
contribute suggestions. In this respect, the results of the open public consultation cannot be
statistically representative but cover the various aspects of the programme and therefore the
different topics evaluated.
This open public consultation has been conducted through an online questionnaire consisting
primarily of multiple-choice, with some open-ended questions. As mentioned above, two
questionnaires were available on the consultation webpage:
6
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0007.png
A
general survey
for the respondents with no direct role in the Programme: academics,
think tanks, NGO, the General Public, Industry business, public authorities, private sector
bodies and professionals, etc. This survey contains core questions and focuses on general
topics and the non-internal aspects of the CEF Programme.
A
technical survey
for the others respondents who are involved in the programme at CEF
design, management or implementation of the programme or are among its beneficiaries.
This survey is more specific, and also covers internal aspects of the Programme.
These two surveys covered all the evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness,
efficiency, and EU added value) and were adapted to the level of information of the
respondents and their interest in the programme.
The stakeholders consultation was officially launched on the 28/11/2016. The two surveys
were available online during a period of thirteen weeks (instead of the usual twelve weeks, to
take into account the Christmas break), ending on the 27/02/2017.
In total, 148 individual stakeholders responded to the general survey, and 184 to the
technical/stakeholder’s survey. In addition,
132 interviews with key high-level/institutional
stakeholders
were conducted.
Figure 1 Number of respondents per survey by origin
Source: PwC, based on OPC data as transmitted by the European Commission.
The relative share of respondents from the three CEF sectors reflects the correlative allocations of
budget, transport being the largest and telecom the smallest. This observation is confirmed by the
data in Figure 1, which shows the number of respondents by geographic origin. The majority of
respondents come from Belgium, Italy, France, Spain and Germany. Figure 2 shows the number of
respondents classified by sector and type of survey.
7
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0008.png
Figure 2 Number of respondents by sector
Source: PwC, based on the OPC data as transmitted by the European
Commission.
Finally, if they were not responding in their private capacity, the survey also asked respondents to
identify themselves according to the type of institution with which they are associated. The results
of this question are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Number of respondents by type of institution
Unknown
Regional/local authority
Other
Civil society
National Ministry
Industry
Infrastructure manager
Infrastructure operator
Consulting company
IT solution provider
Other European Bodies
University/Research center
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
General
Technical
Source: PwC, based on the OPC data as transmitted by the European Commission.
8
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0009.png
Figure 4 Geographical distribution of the surveys' responses
Source: PwC, based on the OPC data as transmitted by the European Commission. The word" consultation" in the graph
refers to the word "survey"
Interviews with key stakeholders were conducted at the strategic and institutional level for
the CEF Programme and in the EU. These interviews allow covering high level and
horizontal topics regarding the relevance of the programme, the coherence, the efficiency of
the programme’s management and implementation or the EU added value.
The selected interviewees belonged to the following categories of stakeholders (not
exhaustive list):
Institutional CEF stakeholders and the management and implementation bodies: INEA,
EIB;
DGs MOVE, ENER, CNECT ECFIN, CLIMA, ENV, RTD and REGIO;
The European Parliament - Committees responsible for the 3 sectors;
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions;
Core investors in the transaction signed under CEF FIs, as well as institutional investors
other than the afore-mentioned investors;
EFSI representatives at the European Commission (EC) and the EIB;
European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation.
The questionnaires and interview’s orientations were tailored to each stakeholder before the
corresponding meeting. The interviews were aligned with the professional expertise or
knowledge of the interviewee, in order to retrieve the most accurate and relevant information.
Many subsequent exchanges between the evaluators and stakeholders have been pursued after
9
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0010.png
the meeting themselves. These exchanges supplied the evaluator with data and quantification
backing the stakeholders’ statements, specifying as to their position or just by providing
additional legal or descriptive documents.
Figure 5 Number of interviews by sector
Figure 5 shows the breakdown of these
interviews by sector. The breakdown is
relatively well balanced among the sectors,
showing a modest preference in line with
the relative allocation of budget among
the sectors, with transport receiving the
greatest number of interviews and
telecom the fewest.
An effort was also made to include a
certain amount of geographic balance
among stakeholders.
36
50
Transport
Energy
42
Telecom
Source: PwC
Figure 6 shows the geographical location of the interviewed stakeholders across Europe. Of course,
because the CEF Programme is a central managed EC instrument, there was a large number of
stakeholders involved with design and implementation of the Programme from the EU institutions,
and particularly from the European Commission.
Figure 6 Number of interviews by origin and by sector
This point is made quite clearly in Figure 7, which shows the number of stakeholder interviews by
category and origin. Please note the dominance of strategic stakeholders from the EC group.
10
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0011.png
Figure 7 Number of interviews by category and by origin
Interviews were also conducted with key stakeholders at the horizontal level, covering all three
sectors of the CEF programme. Table 1 summarises the interviews conducted at the horizontal level,
by institution.
Table 1 Horizontal consultations by institution
Consulted institution
CEF Strategy and implementing DGs
Other concerned DGs: DG CLIMA, DG ENV,
DG REGIO, DG BUDG, DG ECFIN
European Economic and Social Committee
Consulted institution
INEA
Committee of the Regions
EIB
European Parliament
External policy experts
European Fund for Strategic Investments
Total of high level consultations
Interviews performed
2
5
1
Interviews performed
2
1
1
1
2
1
16
Figure
8
Transport
Interview
Categories
11
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0012.png
Figure 9 Energy Interview Categories
National policy institution
National Regulatory Authority
European Agency
Project promoter -TSO
Private project developer
Group of project promoters -TSO
European Public institution
NGO
Figure 10 Telecommunication Interview Categories
Association
CEF Telecom Committee
DSI Expert Group
European Commission
National agency
Private company
Public entity
12
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0013.png
2. Relevance
When asked about the relevance of the general objectives of the CEF Programme to the goal of
developing Trans-European Networks in transport, energy, and telecommunications, the majority of
respondents to the general and technical surveys, as well as participants in targeted interviews from
all three sectors, agree that the objectives are relevant.
In your opinion, should investing in the fields of transport, energy and
telecommunications be an EU priority?
GB1
145
Yes, 99%
No, 1%
TB1
183
In your opinion, should investments in the fields of transport, energy and
telecommunications be supported by the EU budget?
Yes, 99%
No, 1%
GB2
Total
In your opinion, how important is each of the following CEF objectives to the
goal of developing trans-European transport, energy and
telecommunications networks?
Very
important
Important
Moderately
important
Slightly
important
Not at all
important
I don’t know
A. Develop the physical transportation, energy and telecommunications infrastructure
147
50%
27%
3%
20%
0%
B. Reduce disparities in social and economic development across the regions of the EU
145
32%
52%
12%
4%
0%
0%
1%
C. Create an environment that attracts private financing to infrastructure projects
146
28%
32%
32%
5%
3%
1%
D. Develop projects that combine infrastructures for transportation, energy and ICT (e.g.: intelligent
and sustainable transport systems)
147
33%
48%
16%
3%
1%
1%
E. Improve the competitiveness of the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors on the
global market
146
32%
29%
14%
21%
3%
1%
F. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable
energy
146
70%
21%
6%
3%
0%
1%
For question GB2 on the general survey, on average 41% responded that each objective was “very
important” to the goal of developing Trans-European Networks, while 35% responded “important”.
For the equivalent questions on the technical survey, including TB2, on average 49% of respondents
said that each objective was “very important” and 32% said “important”.
13
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0014.png
Developing the infrastructures in the three sectors is the objective considered most relevant by the
respondents in the technical survey (with 87% considering it "very important" and 10 "important"),
whereas in the general survey this objectives – despite among the most important – was second to
CEF Programme’s contribution to the EU’s climate action goals.
70% of respondents to the general survey said that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increase
energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy was “very important.” This notably strong result
was driven by the transport and energy sectors. Among respondents who reported working in the
telecom sector, only 35% responded that climate action was “very important” to developing the
Trans-European Networks. This result can be explained by the limited relevance of telecom sector
actions to climate action goals.
Relevance of CEF actions to EU climate
A similar result emerged from the targeted
policy
stakeholder interviews, where the vast majority
of respondents agreed that CEF contributes to EU
“To be compatible with EU climate
climate action goals, while just a handful of
objectives, CEF should strictly refuse to
interview subjects in each sector said the
finance fossil fuel based infrastructure (gas,
contrary. With regard to the expert interviews, 17
out of 30 energy experts that were asked on how
coal and oil) and therefore only support
CEF is in line with the climate objectives felt that
renewable energy based infrastructure.”
adjustments might be needed in CEF with a view
to the 2030 targets.
Friends of the Earth Europe, Ireland
Furthermore, 77% of respondents to the technical
General Survey
survey (TB2) and 80% of respondents to the
general survey (GB3) said that developing
projects that combine infrastructures for transportation, energy and ICT was either “very important”
or “important". Reduction in disparities of social and economic development in Europe was also
considered as a "very important" objective by the respondents to the general survey, whereas in the
technical survey relevance in improving the competitiveness of the three sectors was rated higher.
Regarding CEF instruments and activities, financing of projects and studies through non-repayable
grants was considered by the respondents to the general survey (GB3) as the most important; with
80% of them responding that it is either "very important" or "important". Direct purchase of services
via procurement – which is in any case an activity very limited in CEF – was considered "very
important" or "important" only by 29% of respondents.
14
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0015.png
GB3
Total
In your opinion, how determining are the following features of the CEF
programme for addressing the CEF sub-objectives presented in question B.2
above?
Very
important
Important
Moderately
important
Slightly
important
Not at all
important
I don’t know
A. The focus on multi-sectorial (transport, energy and telecommunications) projects and potential
synergies
145
21%
58%
14%
3%
2%
1%
B. The focus on cross-border projects and promoting better connexions between infrastructures
and networks
146
47%
21%
28%
3%
1%
0%
C. Financing of projects and studies through non-repayable grants
144
55%
25%
12%
3%
1%
3%
D. Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments such as loans, guarantees and
equity (Loans, guarantee and equity are part of the European Investment Bank financial products
where the EU budget can be used for attracting private investment to a project/corporate. See
more at : http://femip10.eib.org/products/index.htm)
144
35%
31%
E. Direct purchase of services via procurement
143
10%
19%
19%
28%
7%
9%
3%
3%
3%
4%
30%
1%
F. Providing technical assistance to help prepare and deliver projects
145
45%
30%
13%
8%
For most respondents of the technical survey, CEF is fully or to a large extent aligned with other EU
policy objectives and initiatives in the fields of transport (73% of respondents), energy (78%) and
telecommunications (68%).
The technical survey also included a series of questions on the relevance of the sectorial objectives
for the contribution to the EU policy objectives. In the transport sector (TB3a), the priorities of
removing bottlenecks and of bridging missing links were considered by the largest majority of
respondents (93% and 90% respectively) to be fully or to a large extent conducive to the contribution
to the EU policies' objectives. Improving the safety on the networks was considered to contribute to
the objectives to a relatively lesser extent. In the energy sector (TB3b), the priority considered to be
most conducive to the contribution of EU policies objectives was the enhancement of Union's energy
supply (94% fully or to a large extent). In the case of the Telecommunications sector (3B3c), 89% of
respondents considered that CEF contributes fully or to a large extent to EU policies by improving the
daily life of citizens, businesses and public administrations. Overall, specific objectives of the
telecommunications sector were considered to contribute to a less extent to the general objectives,
as compared to the other sectors, with the lowest score given to the extent to which CEF programme
enhances access to broadband networks. This is consistent with the limited budget allocation for
broadband infrastructure projects.
15
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0016.png
TB3a
Total
CEF is meant to contribute to the EU policies in the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors. Are the sector-specific priorities listed below conductive to
contribute to the objectives of CEF listed in the question B.2 above ? (In the transport
sector?)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Removing bottlenecks (capacity improvements)
110
65%
28%
5%
B. Bridging missing links, in particular cross-border sections
108
60%
30%
C. Enhancing interoperability in all modes
6%
0%
1%
3%
3%
2%
1%
3%
2%
109
46%
37%
16%
0%
D. Ensuring sustainable and efficient transport systems in the long run
108
53%
36%
E. Improving safety on the networks
10%
0%
110
41%
34%
21%
2%
F. Optimising the integration and interconnection of transport modes
108
44%
38%
15%
1%
TB3b
Total
CEF is meant to contribute to the EU policies in the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors. Are the sector-specific priorities listed below conductive to
contribute to the objectives of CEF listed in the question B.2 above ? (In the energy
sector?)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Increasing competitiveness by Promoting the further integration of the internal energy market
33
61%
33%
0%
3%
3%
B. Increasing competitiveness by promoting the interoperability of electricity and gas networks
across borders
32
44%
34%
19%
0%
3%
C. Enhancing the security of the Union’s energy supply
33
82%
12%
6%
0%
0%
D. Contributing to the sustainable development and protection of the environment, inter alia by the
integration of energy networks and carbon dioxide networks
33
48%
27%
21%
3%
0%
16
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0017.png
TB3c
Total
CEF is meant to contribute to the EU policies in the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors. Are the sector-specific priorities listed below conductive to
contribute to the objectives of CEF listed in the question B.2 above ? (In the
telecommunications sector?)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Increasing competitiveness of the European economy, social and economic growth (including SMEs) in the telecommu
26
42%
42%
8%
0%
8%
B. Achieving an effective Digital Single Market
26
46%
42%
4%
0%
8%
C. Ensuring non-discriminatory access to broadband networks and digital inclusion
26
27%
38%
23%
4%
8%
D. Improvements in daily life for citizens, businesses (including SMEs) & public administrations
26
54%
35%
4%
4%
4%
A subsequent question, TB4, asked about the extent to which individual aspects of the program are
determining to the ability of CEF to address its stated objectives. This included a discussion of the
different forms of financial support under the programme. Figure 11 shows the results for non-
repayable grants, as well as the two kinds of FIs under CEF, loans and equity. The difference in the
perceived relevance of non-repayable grants as compared to loans and equity is remarkable and
relatively consistent across sectors. Financial instruments were considered less relevant, consistently
across sectors; equity instruments were rated "very important" only by about 10% of respondents in
each sector, although in the telecommunications a higher share of respondents rated them as
"important".
Figure 11 Perceived importance of form of financial support by sector
How determining is the use of the following forms of financial support in
addressing the programme needs...?
I don’t
know
Not
relevant
Moderatel
y relevant
Very
relevant
Fully
relevant
Transport
grants loans equity
Energy
grants loans equity
Telecom
grants loans equity
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
17
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0018.png
18
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0019.png
TB4
(2)
Total
In your opinion, how determining are the following features of the CEF Programme for
addressing the needs presented in question B.2 and the sector specific objectives listed
in question B.3 above? (Loans, guarantee and equity are part of the European
Investment Bank financial products where the EU budget can be used for attracting
private investment to a project/corporate.
Fully relevant Very relevant
Moderatley
relevant
Not relevant
I don’t know
E.1 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Guarantees for transport
109
7%
17%
54%
11%
10%
E.2 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Guarantees for energy
32
16%
25%
44%
3%
13%
E.3 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Guarantees for telecommunications
24
8%
25%
25%
21%
21%
F.1 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Equity for transport
109
10%
15%
45%
18%
12%
F.2 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Equity for energy
31
13%
19%
39%
13%
16%
F.3 Financing of projects and studies through repayable instruments (use of financial instruments)
such as Equity for telecommunications
23
9%
35%
17%
17%
22%
G.1 Central management (work programmes, projects selection done at EU level by the
Commission) for transport
109
41%
36%
15%
5%
G.2 Central management (work programmes, projects selection done at EU level
Commission) for energy
31
39%
42%
6%
10%
G.3 Central management (work programmes, projects selection done at EU level
Commission) for telecomunications
4%
by the
3%
by the
24
54%
42%
4%
0%
0%
H. Budget appropriations per sector (ex-ante ring-fencing for transport, energy and
telecommunications)
168
29%
36%
15%
2%
18%
I.1 Providing technical assistance to help prepare and deliver projects for transport
108
32%
31%
28%
5%
5%
I.2 Providing technical assistance to help prepare and deliver projects for energy
31
26%
13%
48%
13%
0%
I.3 Providing technical assistance to help prepare and deliver projects for telecommunications
24
50%
38%
4%
4%
4%
19
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0020.png
TB4
(3)
Total
In your opinion, how determining are the following features of the CEF Programme for
addressing the needs presented in question B.2 and the sector specific objectives listed
in question B.3 above? (Loans, guarantee and equity are part of the European
Investment Bank financial products where the EU budget can be used for attracting
private investment to a project/corporate.
Fully relevant Very relevant
Moderately
relevant
Not relevant
I don’t know
J. For transport, protection of national allocations in the cohesion envelope until 31/12/2016
105
19%
20%
13%
10%
37%
K. For transport, level playing field without national allocations for the general envelope
106
40%
29%
9%
6%
16%
L. For transport, early project selection focus on projects that are mature at the beginning of the
programming period
109
18%
39%
21%
12%
9%
M. For transport and energy, pre-identification of projects for energy and telecom in the annex of
the CEF
30
20%
33%
17%
10%
20%
3. Coherence
Coherence of the single programme approach
“While the common management of the three sectors may be worth pursuing, mechanisms to
promote “synergies” between sectors do not appear to have been appropriately implemented.”
French Ministry of Transport
“I agree to the extent that large infrastructure projects have similar challenges, but the sectors
face different types of difficulties. In my opinion, telecommunication has the least amount of
physical intervention and should be looked separately.”
Project promoter, energy sector
One of the key issues in the internal coherence of the CEF Programme is the degree to which the
single programme approach is well-suited to the three sectors involved. The OPC addressed this issue
via multiple questions, the response to which paint a nuanced picture.
GC1
Total
147
To what extent do you agree that the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors face common challenges?
Strongly
agree
15%
Agree
Disagree
Stongly
disagree
0%
I don't know
63%
14%
8%
On the one hand, respondents to the general survey expressed support for the main justifications for
the single programme approach. For example, 65% of respondents the technical survey below (TC1)
and 77% of respondents to the general survey (GC1) either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the
statement that the transport, energy, and telecommunications sectors face common challenges.
20
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0021.png
GC2
Total
In your opinion is the approach of combining all three sectors under one
funding instrument the correct one, or should each sector have a separate
programme on its own?
One overall funding
instrument for all three
sectors
47%
One funding instrument per
sector
38%
I don't know
146
15%
On the general survey (GC2), 34% preferred three individual funding instruments while 47% said one
instrument for all three sectors was preferable.
The CEF Programme is just one of a number of EU programmes designed to
support investment, including in the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors. How would you describe the complementarity
between CEF and the following EU funding instruments?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
I don't know
GC3
Total
A. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
3%
18%
142
34%
8%
13%
7%
9%
37%
40%
40%
28%
B. European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
3%
31%
13%
143
C. Cohesion Fund
141
D. Horizon 2020
140
5%
3%
11%
20%
37%
41%
Respondents to the general survey were on the whole more negative when asked to describe the
complementarity of CEF with the four funding instruments mentioned (GC3). In fact, for ERDF, CF and
Horizon 2020, the number who responded that the complementarity was “excellent” or “good” was
just 20%.
TC1
Total
177
To what extent do you agree that the transport, energy and telecommunication sectors
face common challenges?
Strongly
agree
15%
Agree
Strongly
disagree
18%
disagree
I don’t know
50%
3%
15%
21
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0022.png
TC2
Total
In your opinion, is the approach of combining all three sectors under one funding
instrument the correct one, or should each sector be funded separately?
One overall funding
instrument for all three
sectors
34%
One funding instrument per
sector
53%
I don't know
176
13%
Both surveys asked directly whether it was preferable to have one funding instrument for the three
sectors, or three separate instruments. 53% of respondents to the technical survey (TC2) said that
they preferred individual funding instruments per sector while 34% said one instrument for all three.
TC3
Total
174
To what extent are the specific objectives of the three CEF sectors referred to in
questions B.3.1 to B.3.3 consistent and mutually supportive?
Fully
To a large
extent
8%
29%
To some
extent
34%
Not at all
I don’t know
3%
25%
TC4
Total
A. Transport
108
B. Energy
33
C. Telecom
25
In your opinion, to what extent is the CEF Programme aligned to and complementary
with other EU policy objectives and initiatives in the fields of transport, energy and
telecommunication?
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
27%
30%
24%
46%
48%
44%
19%
12%
16%
1%
0%
4%
7%
9%
12%
In terms of the coherence of the CEF Programme with other EU initiatives and wider EU policy, the
input from stakeholders was mixed. On the one hand, strong majorities in all three sectors indicated
that the CEF Programme is aligned to and complementary with other EU policy objectives and
initiatives in their sector (TC4).
22
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0023.png
TC5
Total
How would you describe the complementarity between CEF and the following EU
funding instruments?
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
169
5%
31%
12%
14%
18%
8%
6%
38%
30%
47%
25%
B. European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
172
3%
28%
20%
C. Cohesion Fund
166
D. Horizon 2020
164
8%
9%
27%
34%
10%
26%
How do you assess the impact on CEF of the creation of the EFSI in 2015?
TC5.1
Total
173
Very positive Quite positive
Quite
negative
17%
Very negative I don’t know
6%
24%
14%
39%
When asked about the complementarity with ERDF, CF, EFSI and Horizon 2020 (TC5), the number of
respondents to the OPC technical survey who responded either that they were “fully” or “to a large
extent” complimentary did not in any case exceed 40%. The responses were not systematically
affected by either the sector the respondent works in, nor by their self-reported level of familiarity
with the Programme.
TC6
Total
To what extent are the CEF-sectorial programmes complementary and coherent with
Member States' interventions/initiatives?
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. In the transport sector
107
12%
B. In the energy sector
32
25%
53%
47%
26%
19%
33%
5%
3%
0%
4%
6%
4%
C. In the telecommunications sector
24
21%
42%
In the transport sector, 72% of respondents said CEF was coherent “fully” or “to a large degree.” In
the energy sector, the total is 76%, while in telecom it is 70%.
23
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0024.png
Figure 12 Perceived coherence of CEF with EU policy and initiatives by knowledge of
CEF
Responses to this question varied
somewhat according to the self-
reported level of familiarity with the
CEF Programme. As shown in Figure
12, those who report knowing the
Programme “fully” were substantially
more likely to say that it was “fully”
aligned to and complimentary with
other EU policies and initiatives in the
sector than those who said they only
know the Programme “to some
extent.” This effect was persistent
across sectors.
To what extent is CEF aligned to and complementary
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I don’t
know
Not at all
To some
extent
To a large
extent
Fully
Know CEF fully Know CEF to… Know CEF to…
Interview participants were also
overwhelmingly positive in their
assessment of the coherence of CEF
with other EU initiatives, with some 50 subjects from all three sectors speaking positively on this
aspect compared to just eight who spoke negatively.
On the other hand, when asked about CEF’s complementarity with specific EU funding instruments,
assessments became markedly less positive in both quantitative and qualitative feedback.
Figure 13 Perceived impact of EFSI set-up by sector
How do you assess the impact on CEF of the creation of
the EFSI in 2015?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Transport
Energy
Telecom
I don’t
know
Very
negative
Quite
negative
Quite
positive
Very
positive
Complementarity with EFSI
“CEF is meant for major EU added
value projects on TEN-T network,
whereas once this money was
transferred to EFSI, there was no
guarantee that it will even be used
for funding the EU priorities, let
alone projects on TEN-T network.”
Estonian Ministry of Economic
Affairs
The technical survey contained a specific question about the impact of the creation of EFSI in 2015.
Here results were relatively evenly split, with 30% saying the impact was “very positive” or “quite
positive,” 31% saying “quite negative” or “very negative,” and 39% responding “I don’t know.” While
the positive responses to this question were quite consistent across sectors, respondents working in
the transport sector were far more likely to say that the creation of ESIF had a negative impact,
whereas respondents from the energy and telecom sectors were more likely to say they didn’t know.
24
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0025.png
These results were complimented with a number of comments, the majority of which were critical of
the impact of transferring the budget from the CEF Programme, which has a targeted focus, to EFSI,
which supports a much broader range of investment projects.
4. Effectiveness
The CEF programme’s effectiveness in developing projects enabling synergies across the transport,
energy, and telecommunications sectors, is higher than originally anticipated. 50 respondents (36%)
to the technical survey expected this to be achieved “fully,” or “to a large extent.”
Figure 14 Perceived effectiveness of CEF
Do you expect the CEF Programme to have a positive impact on the following fields?
Develop transport networks
Develop energy networks
Technical
Develop telecom networks
Availability of DSIs
Transport sector competitiveness
Energy sector competitiveness
Telecom sector competitiveness
Cross-sector synergy projects
Climate action goals
General
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
It emerged from several interviews with project promoters that grants are necessary as "there
is no
consumer underwriting for the (higher than usual) risks associated with the development phase of
such cross border projects; if a project was unable to make a positive final investment decision, then
costs incurred up to that point would not be met by consumers through transmission tariffs. This
could be a deterrent to investment and therefore access to CEF Study Grant co-funding has been
particularly important in stimulating development."
(one gas project promoter). Several
representatives of national authorities emphasised in the interviews also the fact that small countries
with dispersed population and/or more isolated location cannot build a business case or recuperate
via tariffs some of the investments necessary. Here grants for works and/or agreements between
neighbouring countries on the sharing of costs are necessary in order to make them happen at all.
In your view, to what extent has the transport, energy and
telecommunications infrastructure in your country improved over the last
three years?
Substantial
Moderate
Minor
No
I don't know
Improvement improvement improvement improvement
7%
26%
53%
7%
7%
GE1
Total
144
25
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0026.png
GE2
Total
Do you observe so far any positive and valuable contribution from CEF in the
following fields?
Great
contribution
Moderate
contribution
Minor
contribution
No
contribution
I don't know
A. Development of modern high-performing interoperable trans-European transport networks
17%
21%
16%
4%
41%
143
B. Development of modern high-performing interoperable trans-European energy networks
3%
37%
14%
6%
40%
145
C. Development of modern high-performing interoperable trans-European telecommunications
networks
6%
16%
13%
4%
61%
143
D. Development of modern interoperable digital services infrastructures
141
9%
16%
17%
4%
55%
E. Improvement of the competitiveness of the transport sector on the global market
10%
20%
20%
5%
46%
142
F. Improvement of the competitiveness of the energy sector on the global market
7%
10%
33%
8%
43%
141
G. Improvement of the competitiveness of the telecommunications sector on the global market
5%
12%
12%
6%
65%
139
H. Development of projects enabling synergies across the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors
6%
17%
21%
11%
45%
142
I. Reduce disparities in economic development across the regions of the EU
9%
20%
21%
9%
140
J. Reduce disparities in social development across the regions of the EU
7%
16%
18%
13%
139
41%
46%
K. Strengthening the integration of, and cooperation between the regions of the EU
12%
25%
40%
7%
16%
141
L. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increase of energy efficiency and use of renewable
energy
11%
20%
24%
25%
20%
142
M. Increase in availability of digital services infrastructures
9%
19%
15%
141
4%
54%
26
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0027.png
Do you expect the CEF Programme to effectively achieve…
TE1
Total
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A.1 the development of modern and high-performing trans-European networks for/in the area of
transport?
105
33%
45%
21%
1%
0%
A.2 the development of modern and high-performing trans-European networks for/in the area of
energy?
34
38%
35%
24%
3%
0%
A.3 the development of modern and high-performing trans-European networks for/in the area of
telecommunications?
24
21%
33%
42%
0%
1%
4%
27%
B. the increase in availability of digital services infrastructures?
160
11%
31%
30%
Do you expect the CEF Programme to effectively achieve…
TE1
(2)
Total
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
C. the improvement of the economic, social and territorial cohesion in the internal market?
169
14%
38%
36%
6%
7%
D. the creation of an environment that attracts private financing to infrastructure projects?
172
10%
27%
50%
3%
9%
E. the development of projects presenting synergies across the transport, energy and
telecommunications sectors?
169
8%
22%
43%
10%
17%
F.1 the improvement of the competitiveness on global markets of the transport sector?
106
17%
36%
42%
4%
2%
F.2 the improvement of the competitiveness on global markets of the energy sector?
34
26%
41%
29%
0%
3%
F.3 the improvement of the competitiveness on global markets of the telecommunication sector?
23
17%
26%
43%
4%
9%
G. the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increase of energy efficiency and use of renewable
energy?
166
17%
35%
31%
4%
13%
27
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0028.png
TE2a
Total
In your opinion, to what extent is the CEF Programme achieving the following specific
objectives set for use of financial instruments ? (For the Debt Instrument)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. to contribute to overcoming deficiencies of the European debt capital markets
169
4%
10%
26%
7%
54%
B. to create additional risk capacity in the entrusted entities
167
4%
13%
25%
C. to facilitate financing for project companies
169
5%
14%
29%
5%
5%
53%
47%
TE2b
Total
In your opinion, to what extent is the CEF Programme achieving the following specific
objectives set for use of financial instruments ? (For the Equity Instrument)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. to contribute to overcoming the deficiencies of European capital markets
169
4%
10%
24%
8%
54%
28
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0029.png
TE4a
Total
In your opinion, to what extent do the following issues pose a challenges for the
implementation of the CEF Programme? (In the transport sector)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Capacity to identify/propose eligible projects
105
15%
24%
B. Transparency in the selection of projects
105
12%
22%
C. Obstacles relating to the granting of financing
106
13%
25%
33%
42%
39%
27%
24%
14%
1%
0%
8%
D. Lack of involvement/investment from the private sector (e.g. public-private partnerships, etc.)
105
8%
23%
42%
20%
8%
E. Lack of available EU budget
106
42%
37%
16%
4%
1%
1%
10%
F. Lack of available budget for the national funding/from the beneficiaries
106
25%
41%
25%
8%
G. Obstacles relating to the granting of permits/regulation
105
10%
34%
37%
10%
H. Obstacles in delivering complex (cross-border) infrastructures on time
104
10%
41%
38%
7%
5%
I. Obstacles in improving compatibility between the different systems used in each sector in order
to achieve interoperability
104
11%
27%
44%
9%
12%
10%
19%
J. Obstacles in creating/exploiting synergies between sectors
104
8%
18%
43%
K. Obstacles in reflecting changes in the technological development and innovation
103
5%
17%
53%
14%
12%
L. Creation of market distortions
103
3%
M. Administrative burden
107
16%
12%
26%
37%
43%
29%
10%
19%
5%
29
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0030.png
TE4b
Total
In your opinion, to what extent do the following issues pose a challenges for the
implementation of the CEF Programme? (In the energy sector)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Capacity to identify/propose eligible projects
32
16%
16%
B. Transparency in the selection of projects
32
16%
16%
C. Obstacles relating to the granting of financing
30
13%
23%
44%
34%
37%
25%
31%
23%
0%
3%
3%
D. Lack of involvement/investment from the private sector (e.g. public-private partnerships, etc.)
32
9%
19%
41%
28%
3%
E. Lack of available EU budget
32
19%
9%
53%
16%
3%
6%
3%
F. Lack of available budget for the national funding/from the beneficiaries
32
19%
28%
38%
9%
G. Obstacles relating to the granting of permits/regulation
32
22%
34%
31%
9%
H. Obstacles in delivering complex (cross-border) infrastructures on time
31
23%
42%
26%
6%
3%
I. Obstacles in improving compatibility between the different systems used in each sector in order
to achieve interoperability
30
7%
17%
40%
17%
19%
20%
19%
J. Obstacles in creating/exploiting synergies between sectors
31
10%
16%
35%
K. Obstacles in reflecting changes in the technological development and innovation
31
10%
13%
45%
19%
13%
L. Creation of market distortions
31
6%
M. Administrative burden
32
13%
16%
22%
23%
28%
32%
34%
23%
3%
30
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0031.png
TE4c
Total
In your opinion, to what extent do the following issues pose a challenges for the
implementation of the CEF Programme? (In the telecommunications sector)
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Capacity to identify/propose eligible projects
24
17%
33%
B. Transparency in the selection of projects
24
8%
29%
C. Obstacles relating to the granting of financing
23
0%
35%
38%
38%
52%
8%
21%
13%
4%
4%
0%
D. Lack of involvement/investment from the private sector (e.g. public-private partnerships, etc.)
24
29%
21%
33%
17%
0%
E. Lack of available EU budget
25
20%
24%
48%
8%
0%
4%
30%
F. Lack of available budget for the national funding/from the beneficiaries
24
13%
50%
25%
8%
G. Obstacles relating to the granting of permits/regulation
23
9%
13%
30%
17%
H. Obstacles in delivering complex (cross-border) infrastructures on time
24
17%
33%
29%
4%
17%
I. Obstacles in improving compatibility between the different systems used in each sector in order
to achieve interoperability
25
24%
32%
20%
12%
0%
12%
17%
J. Obstacles in creating/exploiting synergies between sectors
24
17%
25%
42%
K. Obstacles in reflecting changes in the technological development and innovation
25
20%
36%
32%
4%
8%
L. Creation of market distortions
23
4%
M. Administrative burden
23
9%
22%
26%
30%
43%
22%
17%
22%
4%
B.6. Efficiency related question
TF1
Total
165
In your opinion, to what extent is the common management of the 3 sectors under CEF
Programme conducive to economies of scale (in terms of project appraisal and
management)?
Fully
To a large
extent
5%
32%
To some
extent
30%
Not at all
I don’t know
10%
22%
31
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0032.png
TF2
Total
In your opinion, how efficiently are the following aspects of the implementation of the
CEF Programme handled:
Very
efficiently
Somewhat
efficiently
Slightly
inefficiently
Somewhat
inefficiently
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Managing the national envelopes under the Cohesion Fund
121
0%
0%
0%
B. Minimizing the administrative burden
170
9%
38%
28%
2%
9%
7%
8%
3%
83%
6%
2%
2%
2%
14%
10%
11%
5%
9%
72%
8%
C. The allocation of funds in Work Programmes and per priority
170
17%
52%
12%
D. The frequency and duration of calls for proposals
170
26%
45%
14%
E. The application and selection process managed by INEA
171
34%
42%
10%
F. The application and selection process managed by European Investment Bank (EIB)
167
7%
14%
3%
4%
1%
G. The awareness raising and promotion of the programme
169
22%
52%
12%
5%
1%
TF3
Total
For the projects you are involved in, to what extent do you appreciate the following
features?
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A. Cost efficiency
162
27%
41%
44%
23%
36%
44%
16%
9%
26%
18%
17%
2%
2%
8%
4%
6%
11%
14%
13%
32%
23%
13%
33%
B. Financing commitment
163
32%
C. Mitigation of refinancing risk
159
11%
D. Clear financial close procedure
160
19%
E. Process timing
161
19%
F. Blending, with regards to bridging the financing gap
160
14%
19%
22%
Here there seems to be a piece missing…
Several representatives of project promoters and national authorities stated that there was so far a
preference to use long standing lending arrangements with the EIB or other financial institutions
rather than the new CEF offer as "borrowing
at company level" or "arrangements through the parent
32
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0033.png
company" were "more attractive than seeking funding at project level".
Several experts interviewed
also emphasised the fact that using a financial instrument instead of a grant results in capital costs
implying a higher tariff – which is obviously more difficult to impose in countries with smaller
population size.
5. Efficiency
Stakeholders appear to have a uniform appreciation for
the role that INEA plays in ensuring the efficiency and
well-functioning of the CEF Programme. 34% of
respondents to the OPC technical survey said that the
application and selection process managed by INEA was
handled very efficiently, and another 42% said it was
handled “somewhat efficiently.” This finding was
reinforced by a number of comments left in the OPC, as
well as by the feedback from targeted stakeholder
consultations with beneficiaries from all three sectors,
which were universally positive from the 41 interview
subjects who provided an opinion.
Efficiency of INEA
"INEA has already demonstrated its
ability to operate efficiently and
effectively, this is greatly
appreciated¨
Transport Beneficiary, UK
OPC Technical Survey
The majority of stakeholders generally agree that INEA has enabled a major simplification of the
processes and procedures, particularly in the energy and telecommunications sector which did not
use its forerunner the TEN-T Executive Agency. The resulting grant agreements are more conjoint,
which reduces the need for subsequent budgetary amendments.
Stakeholders consider the agency to have a strong relationship with DG MOVE, DG CNECT and DG
ENER, with a team like approach between them. The agency is considered to work smoothly, as it has
been able to conclude grant agreements in the set deadline of 9 months in 99% of cases, with most
delays coming from the beneficiaries' side. Stakeholders agree that the costs associated with INEA
are minimal providing for an efficient implementation of the CEF programme. Some shortcomings
have been observed however in relation to communication and dissemination of information to the
general public about INEA's work.
Figure 15: Perceived efficiency of INEA by knowledge of CEF
How efficient is the application and selection
process managed by INEA?
Not at all
Slightly
inefficiently
Somewhat
inefficiently
Somewhat
efficiently
Very
efficiently
Know CEF fully
Know CEF to
a large extent
Know CEF to
some extent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
33
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0034.png
It is worth noting that the
Efficiency of calls for proposal
response to this question
"The period during which the calls are open (less than 4 months)
varies systematically
according to the self-reported
is too short, in particular for projects with partners from different
level of familiarity with the
Member States¨
CEF Programme, with those
Local Authority, France
who believe they know it best
OPC Technical Survey
having a more positive
assessment of INEA’s
performance than those that
“With the tight schedule of past calls it is very challenging for the
know it less well. As shown in
SESAR Deployment Manager and implementing partners to
Figure 16, nearly 50% of those
identify and prepare multi-stakeholder proposals that could bring
who said they know the CEF
more added value." Transport Beneficiary, Spain
Programme “fully” said that
INEA managed the application
Transport Beneficiary, Spain
and selection process “very
OPC Technical Survey
efficiently,” compared to just over 20% of those who only know CEF “to some extent.”
A related issue is the timing of calls for proposals. 26% of respondents to the OPC technical survey
(TF2) reported that the frequency and duration of calls was handled very efficiently, and 45% said
“somewhat efficiently.”
In general, the operational aspects of the CEF are perceived by stakeholders as well structured so as
to deliver the objectives of the Programme. However, while the assessment of the frequency and
duration of the calls was on the whole very positive, there were a number of suggestions made for
how their handling could be improved. In general, the timing and lasting of the calls is sometimes
seen as limiting the efficiency of the Programme. A minority of sectorial beneficiaries indicated
during the targeted stakeholder interviews the desire for calls to be announced further in advance,
so that they could improve the organisation of their interventions, and would also wish for the calls
to be held open longer. Furthermore, some stakeholders gave the opinion that Member States could
generally be more engaged at various stages of the process and further opportunities for discussion
should be promoted.
The administrative cost of the implementation is seen as
Efficiency of application
worthwhile and proportionate to the results achieved.
process
Beneficiaries and operational stakeholders pointed to a
need to reduce administrative burden of submitting
"
The technical nature of CEF is such
proposals for smaller projects: in general, in relation to
that it is necessary to have the
smaller projects, certain stakeholders are of the opinion
support of a specialised consultant to
that the administrative cost of the implementation should
submit an application
”
be more proportionate to the size of the project. This was
particularly true for the Telecom sector where the average
Regional Authority, France
grant size was just EUR 1 million. During targeted
OPC Technical Survey
interviews, Telecom stakeholders indicated that removing
the requirement for all grant proposals to be approved by their MS administration could be a way to
reduce the administrative burden.
This aspect was underscored in the technical surveys (TF1 and TF2). 42% of respondents assessed the
administrative burden was efficient “to some extent” in the transport sector. The telecom sector
received a similar assessment, with 37% of respondents assessing the process as efficient “to some
extent.” The energy sector was deemed “not at all efficient” by a broad part of the interviewees
(32%), and only 26% estimated that the process was efficient “to some extent.” Overall, the scores
for this question are quite low.
The use of e-communication tools to manage the current programme goes that far that, as one
interviewed project promoter in the field of energy put it – "the only paper-based procedure is the
grant agreement". Even though it was not possible to arrive at a meaningful quantification of the
34
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0035.png
cost savings for the involved authorities in MS, there is enough evidence and statements from
experts (several national authorities and one TSO representative), confirming that the new
procedural set up for CEF as of 2013 reduced the regulatory burden for MS.
Some stakeholders (as indicated above, 5 submissions to the technical survey of the 7 that
rated the administrative cost performance of CEF energy as very poor and that submitted free
comments on this issue) referred to the CBCA process as burdensome and/or prolonging the
application process (e.g. ENTSO-E in their position paper). Also experts interviewed on this
issue referred only to the CBCA as being burdensome in terms of compliance, no other issue
was raised in this context. However it is very interesting to add that out of the eleven experts
that discussed this question at greater detail only two felt that the CBCA requirements are
disproportionate. All the others argued that "while
the CBCA requirements are burdensome,
the CBCA is also the best tool in the PCI process to oblige MS to go beyond national
thinking"
(a national authority). Another expert with a more horizontal perspective on CEF
described "administrative
costs are high, but for a good purpose".
Around a quarter of those
interviewed on the issue also felt that there are no concerns as regards the administrative
burden for project promoters.
Whilst the present evaluation does not contain a quantitative assessment of the costs of complying
with the CBCA criteria
2
, one can qualitatively discuss the obligations in particular with a view to
proportionality: indeed the requirement to have a decision on CBCA when applying for CEF
effectively results in a prolongation of the application process and in increased administrative costs
related to provision of proof and documents, but there is an element of proportionality in that a
CBCA is only necessary for applications for grants for work, not for grants for studies where the
amounts at stake are significantly smaller.
6. EU Added-Value
Respondents to the general survey perceived that the programme will promote transnational
cooperation and promote greater investments in the three sectors. The expected added value was
perceived to be lower with regards to the reduction of cross-border network connections within
sectors. Other expected impacts mentioned in the open replies concern the removal of national
bottlenecks which hinder the deployment of a TEN-T (goods and passengers), close the financing
funding gap for “non-bankable” projects, or bankable at very long terms, which need to be carried
out as they are of high added value for the region, hinterland, corridor, as well as to contribute to
standardisation and cybersecurity.
GD1
Total
In your opinion, what benefits do you expect the CEF Programme to
produce? (Multiple answers possible)
Greater
Generation of Promotion of
Reduce
overall
economies of transnational barriers to
investment
scale
cooperation cross-border
levels in
network
energy,
connections
transport and
within
telecommuni
sectors
68%
35%
78%
27%
Other
148
The perceived Added Value of the programme was rated as either substantially or somewhat higher
by half of the respondents (GD2), with 40% rating it as similar to national or regional programmes.
Private individuals rated the highest the added value of CEF, with 60% saying that it his substantially
or somewhat higher value and 38% similar. This was also the case in the technical survey (TD2),
where private individuals rated the added value of the programme as either substantially or
2
The evidence that was collected as part of the underlying study did not allow for a full quantification of CBCA.
35
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0036.png
somewhat higher. Regional and local authorities had similar views (36% similar, 57%
somewhat/substantially higher), one also found it of lower value. For the majority of civil society
organisations the added value was similar, and for one fourth of them higher, a few also responded
that the programme has somewhat lower added value. A few national ministries and infrastructure
managers also responded that they perceived a lower added value than regional or national
programmes.
GD2
Total
142
How do you rate the overall added value of CEF compared to other
programmes at national and/or regional level?
Substantially
higher
24%
Somewhat
higher
27%
Similar
Somewhat
lower
8%
Substantially
lower
1%
40%
In the technical survey, 89% of industry representatives rated CEF added value as either substantially
or somewhat higher, with the remaining considering it similar. Infrastructure managers or operators
showed similar trends of replies, with the majority (52% and 60% respectively) rating it at
substantially higher, 17% and 20% somewhat higher and 13% and 15% similar. Regional/local
authorities perceived high added value in the programme: 71% rated it either substantially or
somewhat higher and 8% similar. 54% national ministries considered the programme added value
substantially or somewhat higher to national/regional ones and 19% similar, although 8% responded
that it is lower.
How do you rate the overall added value of the CEF Programme compared to other
programmes at national and/or regional level?
TD2
Total
157
Substantially
higher
45%
Somewhat
higher
29%
Similar
Somewhat
lower
2%
Substantially
I don’t know
lower
2%
8%
14%
The capacity of CEF to foster development of cross-border projects was confirmed by the
stakeholders in the technical survey, a large majority of which (88-94%) responded that this is the
case fully or to a large extent, for the three sectors.
36
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0037.png
TD1
Total
Compared to what could be achieved without the intervention of CEF, to what extent do
you expect the CEF Programme will…
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t know
A.1 Foster the technical/operational development of cross-border projects for transport
107
36%
53%
10%
0%
0%
A.2 Foster the technical/operational development of cross-border projects for energy
34
44%
50%
6%
0%
0%
A.3 Foster the technical/operational development of cross-border projects for telecommunications
25
40%
48%
12%
0%
0%
B.1 Remove bottlenecks in networks for transport
106
38%
48%
B.2 Remove bottlenecks in networks for energy
34
47%
41%
11%
9%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
3%
0%
1%
0%
4%
1%
B.3 Remove bottlenecks in networks for telecommunications
24
17%
54%
29%
C.1 Bridge the interconnection gaps for transport
105
30%
49%
C.2 Bridge the interconnection gaps for energy
34
53%
32%
20%
15%
C.3 Bridge the interconnection gaps for telecommunications
24
38%
46%
13%
D.1 Promote transnational cooperation for transport
107
36%
36%
25%
The respondents to the technical survey
Investment Acceleration
indicated that one area where they perceived an
added value of the CEF Programme was by
“The use of CEF programme for mature projects
accelerating the investment in Trans-European
is a concrete tool to accelerate investments at an
Networks (TD1). As shown in Figure 14 78% of
advanced stage, and a way to compensate and
respondents working in the transport sector and
socialize at the European level the costs incurred
85% from the energy sector report that they
by those Member States that promote
expect the CEF Programme to accelerate
infrastructure projects and support investments
investment either “fully” or “to a large extent.”
having European impact and relevance.”
Respondents working in the telecom sector
were slightly less positive in their expectations,
Energy infrastructure Operator, Italy
with 63% expecting investment to be
accelerated “fully” or “to a large extent.” These responses were augmented with a number of
positive comments on the contribution of CEF to accelerating investment.
37
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0038.png
TD1
(2)
Total
Compared to what could be achieved without the intervention of CEF, to what extent do
you expect the CEF Programme will…
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
18%
Not at all
I don’t know
D.2 Promote transnational cooperation for energy
34
47%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
D.3 Promote transnational cooperation for telecommunications
25
48%
48%
4%
E.1 Stimulate an acceleration of investments in the area of Trans-European networks for transport
107
36%
42%
20%
1%
1%
E.2 Stimulate an acceleration of investments in the area of Trans-European networks for energy
34
50%
35%
15%
0%
0%
E.3 Stimulate an acceleration of investments in the area of Trans-European networks for
telecommunications
24
21%
42%
38%
0%
0%
Figure 16: Perceived acceleration of investment by sector
To what extent do you expect CEF will accelerate
investments in Trans-European networks for...?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Transport
Energy
Telecom
Fully
To a large
extent
To some
extent
Not at all
I don’t
know
Other positive points on EU added value were brought forward by stakeholders through the
interviews. In the transport sector, it was highlighted that direct interaction between project
promoters and INEA resulted in better quality projects, and was a capacity building experience. For
Energy, CEF is seen to accelerate implementation of interconnection projects and reduce costs for
end users. For Telecom, the Programme is viewed as having a positive impact on the interoperability
of digital services.
Several experts interviewed on the question of EU added value stated that the CEF – with its unique
focus on supranational priorities provides funding for which there would otherwise not necessarily
be alternatives in national budgets. Interview partners in particular from Eastern Member States also
often described the projects funded under security of supply as a common EU effort where all
Member States share in solidarity the costs resulting from the synchronization with the Western grid
(e.g. for Baltic States).
38
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0039.png
In addition most of the targeted stakeholders (24 over 30 or 80%) rated the overall added-value of
CEF as a somewhat higher or substantially higher because is:
More fast and efficient instrument comparing to the national/regional programmes for trans-
European infrastructure networks and Smart and sustainable Economic growth;
A strong catalyst to bring together project promoters, National Regulatory Authorities and
Government ministry representatives to solve issues to enable cross-border infrastructure
projects to be realised;
A support for cross-border projects whose commercial viability is not immediately perceived or
demonstrated.
7. Forward-looking questions
GF1
Total
In your opinion, is there still a need to continue EU financial support for
infrastructure investment in the field of transport, energy and
telecommunications?
Yes
Yes, albeit in Yes, albeit in
a slightly
a
different
significantly
manner
different
manner
52%
14%
33%
No
I don’t know
148
1%
1%
TE1
Total
In your opinion, is there still a need to continue financial support from the EU budget for
the development of trans-European networks?
Yes
179
Yes, albeit in Yes, albeit in
a slightly
a
different
significantly
manner
different
72%
23%
4%
No
1%
39
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0040.png
8. Position papers
Through the evaluation process, the possibility was given to stakeholders and non-stakeholders to
submit a formal opinion as an organisation. First, OPC respondents were allowed to submit their
position papers through the questionnaire. Second, a few targeted stakeholders chose to release a
formal opinion as an organisation instead of an individual and anonymised interview.
14 position papers were submitted in total, including:
Multi-sector
Province of Limburg, Belgium
Tirol – Süd-Tirol Regional political leadership
Region of Venlo, the Netherlands
Europa forum
Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian regional offices around the Gulf of Bothnia
Joint Letter from 10 Environmental associations
3
Ministry of Economy, Estonia
Deutsche Bahn
European Federation of Inland Ports
Finnish Port Association
Gas Infrastructure Europe
The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity
CZ NIC
European coordination of organizations for an EMF exposure regulation
Transport
Energy
Telecom
The 14 position papers received are broadly positive in their assessment of the design, rationale and
objectives of the CEF Programme, including its added value to the EU. However, they also put
forward a number of recommendations and areas for improvement.
One frequent theme was the need tom move away from the heavy reliance on grants. Many
respondents greater use of alternative forms of financing such as blending, while acknowledging
that grants remain necessary for the less bankable projects. Another frequent theme is the positive
assessment of the achievements of central management and the single programme approach.
Position papers generally posited that central management as one of the current success factors of
CEF. Some of these papers also touched on the concept that projects of high EU added value may
have been excluded from support via the CEF Programme due to the timing of calls, as well as the
narrowness of eligibility and selection criteria.
3
Including: Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe, European Environmental Bureau, Energy Watch Group,
E3G, Food & Water, Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Green Budget Europe, Justice and Environment - European
Network of Environmental Law Organizations, transport & Environment
40
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0041.png
Respondent
Arguments supporting CEF achievements
Recommendations and potential
improvements
Respondents active in multiple sectors
Supporting projects targeted specifically at
strengthening the robustness of multimodal
transport networks and nodes and reducing
cross-border bottlenecks
“The CEF provides a strong basis for creating
an efficient and sustainable transport system
that connects all countries and regions of
Europe. The achievements are great in the
Tirol regions. Despites the stakeholders’
effort to diversify funding, grants remain a
needed source of funding.”
“As a central and core Region, Venlo is
mostly concerned about multimodality and
interoperability, which are objectives of the
CEF programme.”
“CEF is an important and relevant tool. Its
extension in the Core Network Corridor
Scandinavian-Mediterranean (Scan-Med)
would consolidate the engagement of the EU
and its role as a key player in the
development of the Artic region. It promotes
territorial cohesion and growth, strengthening
the relevance of EU on local and regional
level.”
CEF should include new roads and waterways
in the core network/in the extended TEN-T,
as well as improving the quality of border
crossings by rail, in order to strengthen
further multimodal transport networks with
trimodal nodes (road, rail, waterway)
“Greening the transport system is not an
option – it is an obligation. The successful
introduction of cleaner transportation
solutions on a large scale remains critical to
the success of The European Union goals for
reducing both the dependence on fossil fuels
and their negative externalities.”
Budget should be raised, as well as more open
to national initiatives which foster
interoperability.
“CEF is an important and relevant tool. Its
extension in the Core Network Corridor
Scandinavian-Mediterranean (Scan-Med)
would consolidate the engagement of the EU
and its role as a key player in the
development of the Artic region. It promotes
territorial cohesion and growth, strengthening
the relevance of EU on local and regional
level.”
“An extension of the corridors should be
implemented in the next CEF Regulation. The
current nine Core Network Corridors of the
CEF are not covering the whole Union;
leaving out important parts of Northern
Europe, i.e. almost the whole of Finland and
Sweden. The absence of the TEN-T Core
Network Corridors in the North, and thus the
lack of a coordinated approach to financing
transport infrastructure, endangers the timely
implementation of the TEN-T Core Network.
Procinvie
Linburg
Tirol – Süd-Tirol
Regio Venlo
Europa forum
Finnish, Swedish
and Norwegian
regional offices
around the Gulf
of Bothnia
“The CEF programme strongly stimulates the
cross-border cooperation between the EU
Member States and regions”
Respondent
Joint Letter –
Environmental
associations
Arguments supporting CEF achievements
“Despites the climate objectives the CEF
regulation set, the programme is still
investing in fossil-fuel infrastructure and
distributed most of its energy funding to gas
Recommendations and potential
improvements
“Due to a changing context (both climatic and
technological), it is a foremost importune that
CEF refocuses its funding respecting 4
criteria:
41
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0042.png
infrastructure actions.”
- Stop public support to fossil fuel based
infrastructure;
- Align the investment criteria with the
changing character of a modern, sustainable
infrastructure;
- Put energy efficiency and renewable
energies first;
Include demand-side measures into the
portfolio.”
Ministry of
Economy,
Estonia
“CEF has been an important instrument for
connecting more peripheral regions closer to
the center of Europe. Trans-European
networks and the existing missing links on
this is of considerable EU added value.
Consequently, the financing of similar
network related projects from an EU central
instrument in the future is important.
Central management of the program has also
proven useful as projects are chosen based on
the same process, priorities and criteria across
EU which favours projects of the highest EU
added value.”
“CEF’s manages should note that the rules for
synergy calls must not be too stringent
Grant must remain a preferred funding
vehicle when the project’s bankability is
limited.
Transferring CEF funds to EFSI has so far not
brought additionality nor complementarity in
the transport sector.”
Respondents active in the transport sector
“The CEF Programme is of a foremost
importance in achieving the EU 2020 goals,
and its specific objectives are overall well
defined.
The design of CEF makes the programme
flexible enough to reallocate funding on
emerging or new priorities (compared to other
programmes of this size and targets).”
Deutsche Bahn
“If grants remain necessary, the need to
diversify the financing schemes is prioritary.
Application procedures could be simplified.
Last, the programme should be more open to
transport-related technology projects that are
not eligible at the moment.”
“In all the CEF calls, high quality projects
were rejected due to insufficient EU budget.
Financial contribution given to inland port
sector is rather low compared to the other
transport modes.”
European
Federation of
Inland Ports
“CEF has been effective in delivering
European transport priorities thus far. In
2015, EUR 12.8 billion of grants were
allocated to 263 projects.”
Respondent
Arguments supporting CEF achievements
Recommendations and potential
improvements
42
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0043.png
Finnish Port
Association
Gas
Infrastructure
Europe
ENTSO-E
CZ NIC
European
coordination of
organizations for
an EMF exposure
regulation
“In all CEF calls, a high number of high-
quality projects were rejected due to
“CEF is needed as ports face an increased
insufficient EU budget.
amount of issues:
Transport requires:
- New trends in the Industry;
- More budget;
- National austerity;
- Better blending;
- Energy prices volatility;
-Better definition and implementation of the
- Climate change.”
EU Added-Value;
- Improving the CEF budget’s distribution
over time.”
Respondents active in the Energy Sector
“In the current CEF, it is very difficult to
identify areas where the 10% top-up rate can
be applied. Only exceptional actions are
“CEF is calibrated to the needs of the EU, as
advised to ask for this top-up.
many European regions really need upgraded
The CEF support instruments should be
and extended Transport, Energy and
accessible for small capital projects if they
Telecommunication infrastructure. To this
meet the setout criteria.
extend, CEF as a programme reinforces the
Last, more feedback could be provided to
integration of the single market. “
CEF promoters, such as descriptions or
examples, that might help the promoter to
submit successful applications.”
“Grants for works under CEF could be a
concrete tool to speed up projects of common
interest in the electricity field and represent
“CEF’s application to the infrastructure
an opportunity to socialise at European Level electricity PCI is limited by too strict and
the costs borne by the countries that are
unclear eligibility criteria.”
promoting projects having benefits for several
European countries.”
Respondents active in the Telecom sector
In the future, CEF Telecom should support
Recognition of CEF Telecom in encouraging
smaller projects with funding based on the
cross-border cooperation.
lump-sum principle.
CZ NIC believes the lump-sum functioning of
Work programmes should not impose public
WIFI4EU will bring more simplification and
procurements processes as many SMEs and
concrete achievements.
innovative bodies are excluded by the criteria.
“Precautionary regulation of the EMF
exposure and required alternatives that are
“Great caution should be warranted with
more environmentally friendly, biologically
regard to the proposed widespread rollout of
tested.
wireless technologies to meet internet
Proper assessment of the potential health and
connectivity requirements.”
environmental consequences of their
widespread use is urgently required.”
43
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
Annex 3. Analytical models used in preparing the evaluation
The interim evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility Programme has been carried out with the
support of an external consultant (PricewaterhouseCoopers) by lead DGs teams and dedicated
Inter-Service Group also comprising other Commission services. The interim evaluation started in
2016 and has been by the Terms of Reference published by the Commission on 23 May 2016.
C.1. General overview of models and methods used in external assessments
The three Commission DGs responsible for CEF (Directorate General for Mobility and
Transport - DG MOVE, Directorate General for Energy - DG ENER and Directorate General
for Communications Networks, Content & Technology – DG CNECT) set out an evaluation
scope (presented in introduction), timeline and methodology, as defined in the roadmap
adopted in 2016.
The evaluation started in December 2015 and was foreseen to be finalised by 31 December
2017. In November 2016 the 3 DGs decided to shorten the general timetable by a 3 months to
ensure the conclusions of the evaluation can feed into the preparation of the next MFF-related
proposals.
In addition, the Commission signed a contract with an external consultant
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers) to prepare a study providing input for the present evaluation.
The evaluation has been carried out based on different sources, namely literature review and desk
research, an extensive stakeholder consultation, including interviews, a sectorial target
consultation and the open public consultation and the analysis of case studies.
1. Data collection, selection and analysis
The review of relevant CEF literature and documentation covers the legal basis and
organisation of CEF, both at programme and at sectorial level. The information gathered
through the desk research feeds into the case studies selection, the portfolio analysis and the
conclusions at the CEF Programme and sectorial level. More specifically, it informed on the
relevant quantitative and qualitative indicators to be taken into account when forming
conclusions on the evaluation questions.
The analysis of available sources in relation to the CEF Programme was conducted at
programme, sectorial and project levels. This was complemented by desk research on data
not directly linked to the CEF Programme, but which was taken into account throughout the
evaluation process as they could nonetheless be relevant (i.e. policy documents on other EU
interventions that could considered for assessing the complementarity with CEF, like EFSI,
ESIF, H2020, etc.).
1.1. Collected and processed data
The information collected as part of the mid-term evaluation mainly includes 1) the data sets
covering grants, CEF Debt Instrument (CEF DI) and procurement, 2) all the documentation
collected as part of the desk research, the sampling and case studies
2. Literature review and desk research
The review of relevant CEF literature and documentation represented an important data
source, particularly for the early stages of the project. Information on the legal basis and
organisation of the CEF were key inputs to both the context and intervention logic. It was
44
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
also used in refining the evaluation questions in order to more accurately match the objectives
and scope of the evaluation.
In the later stages of the evaluation, the desk research was also an important source of
qualitative and quantitative indicators to be taken into account when forming conclusions on
the evaluation questions. The documentation had been either provided by 3 leading DGs or
other stakeholders, or collected by the evaluation team through desk research.
Analysis of available sources in relation to the CEF Programme, and is conducted at three
levels:
Programme level;
Sectorial level; and
Project level.
This was complemented by desk research on data not directly related to the CEF Programme,
but which is taken into account in the evaluation process and are relevant for the CEF (as an
example, policy documents on other EU interventions that could considered for assessing the
complementarity with CEF, etc.).
2.1. Desk research at programme level
The following list of documents and data sources on CEF as a Programme were used and
enriched during the whole evaluation process. It includes, but cannot be restricted to:
Regulation establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (EU) No 1316/2013 and
amendment on the Annex 1;
Policy and strategy documents;
Impact assessment of the CEF;
Adopted CEF Programmes;
Calls for proposals launched, project selection decisions;
Forthcoming calls for proposals for energy/transport - indicative budget allocations,
priorities for financing, project financing decisions;
Grant agreements signed;
Pipeline of projects and budget committed for the CEF financial instruments; and
Programme support actions implemented.
In regards to the horizontal dimension of the analysis to be considered at this level, the
following documentation was considered:
Studies and evaluation reports on the implementation of the EU structural funds;
Data in relation to the Project Bond Initiative;
Policy documents for evaluating the general and specific objectives of the CEF
Programme include: ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’, ‘Jobs, growth and investment’, internal
market policy, climate and energy policy’, ‘Digital Single Market’, regional policy,
environmental policy.
45
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0046.png
2.2. Desk research at sectorial level
In addition to programme level documents, the desk research phase incorporated the review
of other relevant documents at sectorial level. An indicative list of relevant documents could
include:
Transport
TEN-T Corridor work plans and Coordinators progress reports;
Nine core network corridor studies including list of projects and TENtec compliance
maps;
Study on the Cost of non-completion of the TEN-T;
Biennial report on the implementation of the TEN-T Guidelines (when available);
Ex-post evaluation of the TEN-T 2007-2013;
European Court of Auditor performance Audit reports in the field of TEN-T;
Action plan “Making the best use of new financing schemes for European transport
infrastructure projects” (2015);
Opportunities for the transport sector under the Investment, Commission Plan Non-
paper to Ministries for 8 October 2015 Transport Council;
Evaluation of Marco Polo programme.
Energy
TEN-E framework reports;
Report – “The structuring and financing of energy infrastructure projects, financing
gaps and recommendations regarding the new TEN-E financial instrument”;
Reports from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
implementation of the European Energy Programme for Recovery;
ACER consolidated report on PCI monitoring (2015 and 2016-expected);
Evaluation of predecessor programmes (interim evaluation of TEN-E programme 2007-
2013 and EEPR implementation reports).
Telecom
Study “The feasibility and scenarios for the long-term sustainability of the Large Scale
Pilots”, including “ex-ant” evaluation;
Studies on Digital Service Infrastructures;
Relevant policy documents : Digital Agenda Scoreboard index, Digital Single Market,
e-Government Action, Cost Reduction Directive;
Study on National Broadband plans in the EU.
4. Portfolio analysis
Financial and project data for all actions supported by or benefitting from the CEF
Programme between 2014 and the end of 2016 were collected to populate a database for use
in a portfolio analysis. For FIs, the latest approved pipeline of projects under CEF DI were
considered. This was used for descriptive analysis and to identify and to identify issues that
could merit further investigation as case studies where identified.
46
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0047.png
Annex 4. List of sectorial objectives and their related key performance
indicators (KPIs)
CEF Transport specific sectorial objectives
(a) removing bottlenecks, enhancing rail
interoperability, bridging missing links
and, in particular, improving cross- border
sections
The achievement of this objective shall be measured by the
number of new or improved cross-border connections;
(i)
the number of kilometres of railway line
adapted to the European nominal gauge
standard and fitted with ERTMS
the number of removed bottlenecks and sections
of increased capacity on transport routes for all
modes which have received funding from the
CEF
the length of the inland waterway network by
class in the Union
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b) ensuring sustainable and efficient
transport systems in the long run, with a
view to preparing for expected future
transport flows, as well as enabling all
modes of transport to be decarbonised
through transition to innovative low-
carbon and energy-efficient transport
technologies, while optimising safety
the length of the railway network in the Union
upgraded following the requirements set out in
Article 39(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013
The achievement of this objective shall be measured by:
(v)
(i) the number of supply points for alternative
fuels for vehicles using the TEN-T core network
for road transport in the Union
(vi)
(ii) the number of inland and maritime ports of
the TEN-T core network equipped with supply
points for alternative fuels in the Union
(iii) the reduction in casualties on the road
network in the Union
(vii)
(c) optimising the integration and
interconnection of transport modes and
enhancing the interoperability of transport
services, while ensuring the accessibility of
transport infrastructures
The achievement of this objective shall be measured by:
(viii)
the number of multimodal logistic platforms,
including inland and maritime ports and
airports, connected to the railway network
(ix)
the number of improved rail-road terminals,
and the number of improved or new connections
between ports through motorways of the sea
the number of kilometres of inland waterways
fitted with RIS
the level of deployment of the SESAR system,
VTMIS and ITS for the road sector
(x)
(xi)
The budgetary resources as defined for the CEF transport envelope, excluding those allocated to
programme support actions are divided among these three objectives, respecting the following
percentages: 80%, 5% and 15%.
The Commission has the possibility to amend these percentages through the adoption of a delegated
act, should the allocation of funds diverge by more than 5 percentage points from these values.
47
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0048.png
CEF Energy specific sectorial objectives
(a)
increasing competitiveness by
promoting the further integration of the
internal energy market and the
interoperability of electricity and gas
networks across borders
The achievement of this objective shall be measured
ex post
by:
the
number
of
projects
effectively
interconnecting MS' networks and removing
internal constraints
(xiii)
the reduction or elimination of MS' energy
isolation
(xiv)
the percentage of electricity cross-border
transmission power in relation to installed
electricity generation capacity in the relevant
MS
(xv)
price convergence in the gas and/or electricity
markets of the MS concerned
(xvi)
the percentage of the highest peak demand of
the two MS concerned covered by reversible
flow interconnections for gas
The achievement of this objective shall be measured
ex post
by:
(i)
the number of projects allowing diversification
of supply sources, supplying counterparts and
routes
the number of projects increasing storage
capacity
system resilience, taking into account the
number of supply disruptions and their duration
the amount of avoided curtailment of renewable
energy
the connection of isolated markets to more
diversified supply sources
the optimal use of energy infrastructure assets
(xii)
(b)
enhancing Union security of energy
supply
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(c)
contributing to sustainable
development and protection of the
environment, inter alia by the integration
of energy from renewable sources into the
transmission network, and by the
development of smart energy networks
and carbon dioxide networks
The achievement of this objective shall be measured
ex post
by:
(i)
the amount of renewable electricity transmitted
from generation to major consumption centres
and storage sites
the amount of avoided curtailment of renewable
energy
the number of deployed smart grid projects
which benefited from the CEF and the demand
response enabled by them
the amount of CO 2 emissions prevented by the
projects which benefited from the CEF
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
48
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0049.png
CEF Telecommunication specific sectorial objectives
(a) economic growth and support to the
completion and functioning of the internal
market in support of the competitiveness of
the European economy, including small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
(b) improvements in daily life for citizens,
businesses and public authorities at every
level through the promotion of broadband
networks, interconnection and
interoperability of national, regional and
local broadband networks, as well as non-
discriminatory access to such networks and
digital inclusion
The following operational priorities shall contribute to
the achievement of the objectives:
(xvii)
interoperability,
connectivity,
sustainable
deployment, operation and upgrading of trans-
European digital service infrastructures, as
well as coordination at European level
efficient flow of private and public investments
to stimulate the deployment and modernisation
of broadband networks with a view to
contributing to achieving the broadband targets
of the Digital Agenda for Europe
(xviii)
CEF general objectives
(a) contributing to smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, in line with the Europe
2020 Strategy, by developing modern and
high-performing trans-European networks
which take into account expected future
traffic flows, thus benefiting the entire
Union in terms of improving
competitiveness on the global market and
economic, social and territorial cohesion in
the internal market and creating an
environment more conducive to private,
public or public- private investment
through a combination of financial
instruments and Union direct support
where projects could benefit from such a
combination of instruments and by
appropriately exploiting synergies across
the sectors
The achievement of this objective shall be measured by the
volume of private, public or public-private partnership
investment in projects of common interest, and in particular
the volume of private investment in projects of common
interest achieved through the financial instruments under this
Regulation. Special focus shall be placed on the efficient use
of public investment
(b) enabling the Union to achieve its
sustainable development targets, including
a minimum 20 % reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions compared to 1990 levels and
a 20 % increase in energy efficiency, and
raising the share of renewable energy to 20
% by 2020, thus contributing to the Union's
mid-term and long-term objectives in terms
of decarbonisation, while ensuring greater
solidarity among Member States
49
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0050.png
Annex 5. CEF intervention Logic
50
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0051.png
Annex 6. The CEF DI Portfolio including the legacy instruments for 3 Sectors
CEF DI Project
AUTOBAHN A-5 PPP TEN
EIX TRANSVERSAL C-25 PPP
LGV SUD EUROPE ATLANTIQUE
OFFSHORE TRANSMISSION
NETWORK- ROUND 1 (Greater
Gabbard)
A11 BRUGGE PPP
N25 NEW ROSS BYPASS PPP
AXIONE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE
AUTOBAHN A-7 PPP TEN
CALAIS PORT 2015
PASSANTE AUTOSTRADALE DI
MESTRE
AUTOBAHN A8 AUGSBURG ULM PPP
TEN
Green Shipping Guarantee
Sector
Transport
Transport
Transport
Energy
Country
Germany
Spain
France
UK
CEF DI product
Loan Guarantee Instrument for Trans-
European Transport (LGTT)
LGTT
LGTT
Project Bond Credit Enhancement (PBCE)
Project Costs (EUR m)
628.4
815.3
7,851
424.9
Transport
Transport
Broadband
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Belgium
Ireland
France
Germany
France
Italy
Germany
PBCE
PBCE
PBCE
PBCE
PBCE
PBCE
Senior Debt Credit Enhancement (SDCE)
657.5
169
189.1
772.6
862.5
990
505
13,865.3
Depending on the disbursement
to the final recipients, estimated
at 3,000
Estimated at 129
Transport
EU
CEF Debt
Project for port development under
signature*/
Transport
CEF Debt
51
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0052.png
Annex 7. EU funding of infrastructures in the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework
Sector
Source/Progr
amme
Objectives
Priorities/Eligibility criteria
Budget
2007-
2013
(EUR
million)
Energy
(electricity
and gas
networks)
TEN-E
Programme
Developing energy
projects that contribute to
the working of the single
market, particularly of
crossborder nature
Project of common interest and
projects of European interest as
identified in the TEN-E guidelines
155
Grants:
- for studies (up to 50%
co-financing)
- for works (up to 10%)
Interest rate rebate (never
used)
Member States
undertake the
technical
monitoring and
financial control of
projects in close
cooperation with the
Commission
Evaluation
responsibilities
shared by the
Commission and
Member States
European
Energy
4
Forms and methods of
financing
Monitoring and
evaluation
Investing in modernising
Europe's energy
TEN-E projects as specified in the
EEPR Regulation
4
2 365
5
(2009-
Grants for works and
project preparation:
Commission in
charge of the
Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community
financial assistance to projects in the field of energy
The total budget of the EEPR programme i.e. EUR 3.980 billion was divided into three sectors: gas and electricity infrastructure projects (EUR 2.365 billion); offshore wind
energy projects (EUR 0.565 billion) and carbon capture and storage projects (EUR 1.05 billion)
5
52
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0053.png
Programme
for Recovery
(EEPR)
infrastructure in response
to the economic crisis in
Europe
2010)
- up to 50%
evaluation of the
progMember
States
may be requested to
evaluate specific
projects;
Commission to
report to other
institutions
Monitoring by
Member States
Commission in
charge of the
evaluation of the
programme
Cohesion Fund and
Increasing and improving
ERDF
the quality of investment
in energy sector physical
capital in order to improve
conditions for growth and
employment, speed up the
convergence of the least-
developed Member States
and regions
European
Converging energy
Neighbourhood and
markets, Enhancing
Partnership Instrument security,
energy
(ENPI) / Neighbourhood
Supporting sustainable
Investment Facility
energy development,
Transport
TEN-T
Programme
Support TEN-T
development
Projects improving security of
supply; gas and electricity
interconnections in cases of
identified market failure
1607
(Funds
allocated
within
financial
perspectiv
e 2007-
2013)
c.a. 25
Grant for works – up to
85% co-financing (but
reduced in case of projects
generating revenues)
Various
Grants
Shared
responsibilities by
the Commission and
Member States
Projects of common interest,
of which list of 30 Priority Projects
8 043
Grants:
- for studies (up to 50%
co-financing)
- for priority projects:
works (up to 20%); up to
Monitoring and
evaluation is mainly
undertaken by the
TEN-T Executive
Agency
53
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0054.png
30% for cross-border
sections;
- for other projects of
common interest: works:
up to 10%.
- ERTMS: up to 50% for
both track-side and mobile
equipemnt.
- traffic management
systems: up to 20% of
eligible costs of works.
Interest rate rebate (never
used)
*of which
LGTT
Encourage PPPs financed
through user-pay
mechanisms
The LGTT provides additional
guarantees against traffic risk that
facilitate and accelerate private
sector investment in TEN-T
projects.
500
TEN-T programme and
EIB Action for growth
initiative to cover risk.
Capital contribution of
EUR
1 billion (50% EU,
50% EIB) with estimated
leverage of 25.
Sponsors
*of which
Marguerite
Fund
Support TEN-T, energy
and renewables
development
Priorities: TEN-T, and other
transport projects;
climate change, meet energy
targets, renewables
Eligibility: transport & energy
80
(1500
target of
total
capital
invested
54
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0055.png
projects >
EUR
200million
Renewables >
EUR
50million
Cohesion
Fund and
ERDF
Support transport
infrastructure
development in order to
strengthen the economic
and social cohesion of the
Union
Encourage modal shift
Finances action on:
- TEN-T, especially Priority
Projects of European interest
with other
investors)
43 000
Marco Polo
Ease road congestion and pollution
/ Companies with viable projects to
shift freight from road to greener
modes
450
Result oriented support
(grant not loan)
Commission DG MOVE
and EACI
Telecom
CIP ICT PSP
Stimulating smart
sustainable and inclusive
growth
Areas of public interest, including
health and ageing, inclusion,
energy efficiency, sustainable
mobility, culture preservation and
learning as well as efficient public
administrations
730
Grants for consortia
implementing: pilot
projects, thematic
networks, best practice
networks.
Annual
implementation
reports, interim and
final evaluations.
Cohesion
Fund and
ERDF
Telephone infrastructures
(including broadband
networks)
ICT technologies, digital
services and other
55
2 300
Grants
10 280
Grants
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0056.png
measures
Framework
Programme7
Information
and
Communicati
on
Technologies
Competitiveness of
European industry,
strengthening scientific
and technology base,
global leadership in ICT,
product, service and
process innovation and
creativity, ICT benefits for
Europe's citizens,
businesses, industry and
governments, reducing
digital divide and social
exclusion.
Productivity and innovation,
modernisation of public services,
advances in science and technology
ICT Technology Pillars
Integration of Technologies:
Applications Research:
ICT for content, creativity and
personal development
ICT supporting businesses and
industry
ICT for trust and confidence
And ICT eInfrastructures
(capacities programme)
9700
of which
270
contribute
d to RSFF
Mainly Grants for
consortia implementing
r&D projects
(from Cooperation
programme,
Continuous and
systematic
monitoring, interim
evaluation, final
evaluation two
years after
completion of the
Programme.
Risk Sharing
Finance
Facility
(RSFF)
Improve access to debt
financing for private
companies or public
institutions promoting
activities in the field of
RDI
Support to a wide range of RDI
activities, including research,
experimental and pre-competitive
development, feasibility studies and
pilots.
Projects to be financed by the EIB
need to be technically,
economically, financially and
environmentally feasible according
to the EIB's project evaluation
criteria.
310
Corporate debt financing,
Project financing,
Mezzanine financing,
Risk sharing lines of
credit,
Guarantees.
Monitoring and
evaluation together
with FP7.
56
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0057.png
Annex 8: The role of INEA
The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) manages the implementation of grants and
certain programme support actions for the CEF programme in all three CEF sectors - by delivering the
full project lifecycle grant management process as illustrated in the diagram below:.
Benefits, Simplifications and Synergies introduced by INEA
Enabling and strengthening efficiency, simplifications and synergies between the three CEF sectors is a
key priority for INEA. Actions that are shared across sectors enable cost savings or results to be
optimised through the sharing of expertise and best practices, as well as the pooling of financial,
technical or human resources. This also benefits the simplification and harmonisation of working
methods, enhancing INEA's effectiveness in managing the programme.
Shared governance and resources
57
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
INEA's Steering Committee made up of representatives from the Parent DGs and other associated
services (DG REGIO, DG ENV, EIB) ensures synergies between the CEF sectors for strategy and
governance of the Agency's work related to the programme.
Joint Commission coordination meetings encourage synergies for all three CEF sectors in procedures and
working methods. INEA reports on or raises cross-sector issues to be examined.
CEF implementation costs are optimised via economies of scale - with consolidated functions in the
Agency for programme support and horizontal services (Communication, Reporting, Evaluation,
Financial Engineering, Human Resources, Logistics, Legal Services, ICT, Audit, Accounting, etc.).
Integrated tools and services can be provided to the different CEF parent DGs, from the technical and
financial implementation of the entire project cycle to programme reporting and reviews.
Programme/project management, including support to beneficiaries
INEA's website provides a single point of access to all CEF funding opportunities and project information
– acting as a one stop shop for all CEF sectors with streamlined communication and easy access to
information. This ensures the provision of high quality information in relation to Calls for Proposals,
maintains a high transparency in the allocation of EU funds in all three CEF sectors, and promotes
project results and achievements for increased visibility of EU actions and promotion of the CEF
programme as a whole.
INEA has developed efficient common, harmonised and optimised evaluation procedures and expert
management, user friendly and transparent call documentation, customised IT tools for 'e-submission'
to support applicants - and call reporting across the three CEF sectors.
INEA provides guidance and technical support in project management and financial engineering to
beneficiaries. This includes dissemination of best practice and innovative solutions to the relevant
stakeholder communities.
The Agency works in close partnership with all beneficiaries across the programme, ensuring close
monitoring of progress and sound financial management of projects (milestones, deliverables, regular
reporting, ad hoc reporting, on-site visits,..). A permanent dialogue is also ensured via workshops and
working groups as well as a variety of communication channels.
A single IT tool was developed to support beneficiaries common to several CEF sectors from submission
of their application to progress monitoring. This tool also ensures the provision of a full and shared data
access for the CEF programme for INEA and the Commission parent DGs, as well as providing the
necessary data for individual and harmonised project factsheets to be published on INEA's website.
Streamlined and harmonised procedures across the three CEF sectors have resulted in short payment
times and fast response rates.
INEA has harmonised services for Geographical Information Services (GIS) (production of maps and GIS
tools) to support the evaluation of proposals, project implementation and decision making processes, as
well as use for communication purposes (website + publications) to enhance visibility of the
geographical allocation of EU funds and implementation of the networks.
58
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
INEA outlines its strategy and communication actions in a Multi-Annual Communication Strategy in line
with the priorities of the Commission. One of the 3 pillars of the strategy – Innovating - focuses on
synergies and economies of scale for communication activities. This is achieved for example via the
website, social media channels, and joint publications (e.g. the forthcoming CEF Implementation
Brochure for all 3 CEF sectors). Best practices and experience are also shared between the sectors.
Support to the European Commission
Feedback on programme implementation as input to policy making: combining the CEF sectors in the
Agency has created an enabling environment that allows a common understanding of the political
priorities of the programmes and their implementation through projects, and the transfer of know-how
back to the Commission.
INEA's expertise and experience allows an effective support to the CEF parent DGs in discussions with
Member States, stakeholders (workshops, committees, conferences, exhibitions etc.).
INEA provides an invaluable contribution to ensuring the alignment of EU funding with the policy
priorities, and for support to the drafting on new work programmes.
INEA contributes to maximising the use of EU funds using the complementarity between the different
sources – and the Agency's overview helps reduce the risk of double funding.
59
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0060.png
Annex 9: Predecessor programme for transport
Implementation of the TEN-T Programme 2007-2013 (state-of-play: 11/09/2017)
1. Calls for Proposals 2007-2013
TEN-T Calls for Proposals have been launched under 15 different Work Programmes. As a result of these
Calls, 717 proposals have been selected by the TEN-T Selection Committee awarding an EU contribution
of €9,736.7 million. Out of these proposals, 18 have been cancelled before the adoption of the
individual Decision, while for some others the amount of the EU contribution was reduced. As a result,
the Programme portfolio consists of 699 projects.
Table 2. Results of TEN-T Calls for Proposals 2007-2013
Selection
Decision
Number of projects
TEN-T funding
717
9,736.7
Individual Decision
699
9,490.5
Reduction (%)
2.51%
2.53%
There are two different types of individual Decisions used in the TEN-T Programme. They are referred to
as Annual type Decision and MAP type Decisions and should not be confused with the different Work
Programmes
6
. The following table gives a quick overview of the two types and their main characteristics.
Table 3. Different types of individual Decisions
Number
of
projects
487
Initial TEN-T
funding
Decision Type
Characteristics
At the start of the project, 100% of the EU contribution is
committed through one single instalment and 50% pre-
financing paid.
The EU contribution is committed through annual instalments
depending on the progress of the project as reported in the
annual Action Status Report (ASR). The pre-financing
payments normally correspond to 50% of the annual
instalment.
Annual Decision
1,855.4
MAP Decision
212
7,635.0
Total
699
9,490.5
The recourse to MAP Decisions has allowed the TEN-T Programme to be less dependent on the actual
commitment and payments appropriations allocated in the yearly budget as it is not necessary to
commit 100% of the initial EU contribution at the beginning of the project. This has allowed the
selection of big, politically important projects through the 2007 MAP Call giving them long-time financial
security on EU support (e.g. Brenner Base, Lyon-Turin, …).
6
In fact, there are Annual Decisions for projects selected under the MAP Call and there are MAP Decisions for
projects selected under an Annual Call.
60
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0061.png
2. Implementation of TEN-T projects
2.1. Evolution of the TEN-T Programme
Figure 1 below shows the evolution of the portfolio of the TEN-T Programme 2007-2013 until September
2017. Out of the total number of 699 projects, 45 had to be cancelled while 587 are already officially
closed, leaving 67 ongoing.
Figure 17. Evolution of the TEN-T project portfolio
2.2. Mid-term review and re-injection of funds
An important milestone in the management of the Programme was the mid-term review organised
jointly by DG MOVE and the Agency in 2010
7
. The review was based on the 'use-it-or-lose-it' principle
consisting in applying funding reductions to projects with low performance and re-injecting the unused
funds into new calls for proposals, so that TEN-T funds are optimally used through their re-investment in
the Programme. This principle has since been applied every year after the annual ASR (Action Status
Report) exercise.
In general, the financial crisis has significantly impacted the speed and scope of the implementation of
TEN-T projects. In combination with strict implementation deadlines (e.g. 31/12/2015 for projects
selected under the 2007 MAP Call), it was therefore necessary to update the implementation plans of
many projects (including the corresponding funding reductions) and, subsequently, re-inject the unused
funding to new projects.
7
Review of the MAP 2007 project portfolio:
http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/ten-t/ten-t_projects/mid-term_review/2007-
2013_map_project_portfolio_review.htm
61
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0062.png
The figure below shows the evolution of the EU funding of the entire project portfolio after
cancellations, amendments or completion of projects. The black line indicates the total commitment
appropriation available for grants (see Annex for details).
Figure 18. Evolution of TEN-T
funding (€ million)
The choice of re-injection of unused funds into the Programme has proven its clear added value. As only
part of the total EU support is committed at the beginning of the MAP Decision projects, it was made
possible through amendments of the funding Decisions to reduce the EU contribution of
underperforming projects and to return the uncommitted funds to the Programme (this has been
termed 'legal decommitment'). NB. In case of cancellations or partial completion of projects however, it
might also be necessary to recover part of the pre-financing. Table 3 shows how all funding reductions
have been recuperated financially.
Table 4. Financial
recuperation of actual funding reductions (€ million)
Decision
Type
Annual
MAP
Total
Number of
projects
487
212
699
Initial TEN-
T funding
1,855.4
7,635.0
9,490.5
Actual TEN-
T funding
1,261.2
4,746.4
6,007.6
Actual
funding
reduction
594.2
2,888.6
3,482.8
out of which:
Legal
decommitment
0.0
2,263.6
2,263.6
out of which:
Decommitment
404.5
529.0
933.5
out of
which:
Recovery
order
189.7
96.0
285.7
Therefore, out of a total amount of initial funding Decisions of €9,490.5 million an amount of €2.3 billion
was released and re-injected to the Programme. The decommitted amount was lost to the Programme
and returned to the general budget of the Commission while the cashed recovery orders became
available as new commitment credits (C4 – assigned revenue) and used for either the TEN-T Programme
or, as of 2014, for the CEF Transport Programme.
62
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0063.png
2.3. Programme Execution
2.3.1 Absorption analysis
The total commitment appropriations available under the TEN-T Programme 2007-2013 for Calls for
Proposals amounted to
€7,405.5 million
(see section below on Financial Overview). The execution can
be measured in different terms:
Consumption through individual commitments
One of the key performance indicators of INEA is to ensure 100% budget execution in every given year.
As from the handover in 2008, INEA has achieved this target year after year and the commitment
appropriations from 2007 until 2012 have been successfully individualised
8
. However, an amount of
around €180 million of the 2013 commitment appropriation was not individualised due to mainly a
relatively unsuccessful TEN-T Call for Proposals 2013 for which an initial amount of €350 million (+€70
million flexibility) was foreseen but only €285 million were individualised.
Commitment execution:
The execution in terms of individual commitments reached almost
98%.
Consumption through EU contribution considered eligible through cost claims
As outlined above, a total of 45 projects had to be cancelled while 587 are already officially closed,
leaving 67 projects ongoing.
Cancelled projects:
Decision
Type
Annual
MAP
Total
Number of
projects
31
14
45
Actual TEN-T Funding
(€ million)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Initial TEN-T
Funding
(€ million)
126.9
396.2
523.1
% of
absorption
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total
commitment
(€ million)
126.9
27.9
154.8
% of
absorption
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Closed projects:
Decision
Type
Annual
MAP
Total
Number of
projects
423
164
587
Actual TEN-T Funding
(€
million)
1,080.5
2,680.6
3,761.1
Initial TEN-T
Funding
(€ million)
1,527.8
4,090.3
5,618.1
% of
absorption
70.7%
65.5%
66.9%
Total
commitment
(€ million)
1,529.2
3,199.3
4,728.5
% of
absorption
70.7%
83.8%
79.5%
In total, closed projects absorbed €3,761.1 million of TEN-T Funding in contrast to an amount allocated
in the initial TEN-T Decisions of €5,618.1 (i.e. 67%). However, the total commitment appropriation used
8
For SESAR, selected under the 2007 MAP Call, INEA has made a commitment of €200 million and following the
handover, DG MOVE has committed the remaining €150 million. The project has ended on 31/12/2016 and DG
MOVE expects an absorption of around €320 million (however, the final payment claim was not yet submitted).
63
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0064.png
for these projects was €4,728.5 which is lower than the amount initially allocated due to the recourse to
MAP Decision. These commitments have been absorbed through cost claims at 79.5%.
Ongoing projects:
For the remaining ongoing projects, the final payment claim has in most cases been received and the
final TEN-T funding can therefore relatively precisely be estimated. Assuming no reduction of the
declared costs, the estimated TEN-T Funding for the ongoing projects is €1,800 million. However, on the
basis of historical data, we must assume the detection of ineligible costs. The resulting forecasted TEN-T
funding for ongoing projects is €1,746 million, corresponding to absorption rates of 52.1% of the initially
allocated TEN-T funding and 74.6% of the committed appropriation.
Decision
Type
Annual
MAP
Total
Number of
projects
33
34
67
Forecasted TEN-T
Funding (€ million)
122.4
1,623.5
1,745.9
Initial TEN-T
Funding
(€ million)
200.7
3,148.5
3,349.2
% of
absorption
61.0%
51.6%
52.1%
Total
commitment
(€ million)
200.7
2,141.0
2,341.7
% of
absorption
61.0%
75.8%
74.6%
The total amount of forecasted TEN-T funding for the 699 adopted TEN-T Decision is therefore €5,508
million corresponding to 76.2% of the individualised commitment appropriation and 74.4% of the total
commitment appropriation available.
Programme execution:
Within the current framework, the final absorption of the TEN-T budget available for grants is forecasted to be
around 74.4%.
Figure 19. Overview of TEN-T
budget absorption (€ million)
Financial Overview
The total operational commitments available for the TEN-T Programme amounted to €7,945.7 million,
shared between DG MOVE, DG ECFIN and INEA according to the table below:
64
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0065.png
Fund Management Centre
DG MOVE (SESAR)
DG ECFIN (Marguerite)
INEA
Total
C1 - Appropriation
350.0
80.0
7,386.2
7,816.2
C4/C5 - Appropriation
Total
350.0
80.0
129.5
129.5
7,515.7
7,945.7
Some parts of this budget were not used for grants selected under Calls for Proposals:
Support to the Marguerite Fund (€80 million)
Support to financial instruments (almost 6% of the total budget)
Amount
LGTT
LGTT (accrued interest)
Project Bonds
EPEC
Total
250.0
6.9
200.0
3.0
459.9
A small amount (€0.3 million) was also used for administrative expenditure under the TEN-T
Calls for Proposals 2012 and 2013.
The remaining amount of
€7,405.5 million
was available for projects under Calls for Proposals.
65
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0066.png
Annex 10: Predecessor programmes for energy: Relevance of legacy
projects for CEF
Following the legislation adopted in 1996 and 2003 respectively, the main EU instruments on trans-
European energy networks (TEN-E) were adopted in 2006 and 2007. These were Decision 1364/2006/EC
laying down guidelines for TEN-E and repealing Decision No 391/1996/EC and Decision No
1229/2003/EC, followed by Regulation 680/2007/EC (“TEN Financial Regulation”). Through this Decision,
based on Article 156 of the Treaty on the European Community (now Article 172 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union), the European Community promoted the interconnection,
interoperability and development of trans-European energy networks and access to such networks in
accordance with Community law in force. The aim was encouraging the effective operation and
development of the internal energy market, facilitating the development and reducing the isolation of
the less-favoured and island regions of the Community, reinforcing the security of energy supplies,
contributing to sustainable development and protection of the environment, inter alia by involving
renewable energies and reducing the environmental risks associated with the transportation and
transmission of energy.
This Decision defined the nature and scope of Community action to establish guidelines for trans-
European energy networks, covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of action by the
Community in respect of trans-European energy networks. These guidelines ranked a total of 342
priority projects/axis in three categories, with the aim to create a more favourable context for
development of those networks
9
:
Projects of Common Interest – which related to the electricity and gas networks meeting the
objectives and priorities laid down in the Decision (the list in Annex II made reference to the
specific objectives and the Member States involved; the list in Annex III laid down 286 projects –
164 in the electricity sector and 122 in the gas sector – with no specifications defined when it
came to actions improving the functioning of the interconnected electricity networks within the
internal market, as well as actions improving the functioning of the interconnected gas networks
within the internal market); they had to display potential economic viability (assessed by means
of a cost-benefit analysis in terms of the environment, the security of supply and territorial
cohesion);
Priority Projects – selected from among the projects of common interest and had to have a
significant impact on the proper functioning of the internal market, on the security of supply
and/or the use of renewable energy sources (the reference list in Annex I laid down 15 axis – 9
in the electricity sector and 6 in the gas sector);
Projects of European Interest – priority projects of a cross-border nature or which had a
significant impact on cross-border transmission capacity (the reference list in Annex I laid down
41 Projects of European Interest – 31 in the electricity sector and 10 in the gas sector). They had
priority for the granting of Community funding under the TEN-E budget and particular attention
was given to their funding under other Community budgets.
9
Complete list of projects: Annex I, II and III of the Decision 1364/2006/EC
66
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
Under the TEN-E programme 2007–2013, only actions related to one or more of the projects identified
in the TEN-E Guidelines received EU financial aid. The evaluation has been based on the following award
criteria:
Maturity of project
Stimulating effect of EU intervention on public and private finance
Soundness of financial package
Socio-economic effects
Environmental consequences
Need to overcome financial obstacles
The degree of contribution to the continuity and interoperability of the network, as well as
optimisation of its capacity
The degree of contribution to the improvement of service quality, safety and security
Between 2007 and 2013, a total number of 111 projects were co-financed under 128 TEN-E Grant
Decisions for a total budget of €143 million. To date, 17 projects are still ongoing.
In 2013, after 6 years of implementation, the TEN-E regulation was fundamentally revised and replaced
by Regulation 347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (“TEN-E Guidelines”).
Under this regulation, a revolutionarily new approach was established, aimed at identifying Projects of
Common Interest in 12 energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas. The new concept of project of
common interest covers lines, pipelines, facilities, equipment or installations falling under the energy
infrastructure categories and is defined by certain criteria: it is necessary for at least one of the energy
infrastructure priority corridors and areas; the potential overall benefits of the project outweigh its
costs, including in the longer term; and the project has to either involve at least two Member States by
directly crossing the border of two or more Member States, be located on the territory of one Member
State and have a significant cross-border impact or cross the border of at least one Member State and a
European Economic Area country.
Out of the 111 projects co-financed under the TEN-E programme 2007-2013, 37 projects became PCIs
on the first Union list of Projects of Common Interest published on 14 October 2013: 21 electricity
projects (20 transmission lines and 1 smart grids project) and 16 projects in the gas sector (13 high-
pressure pipelines, 2 LNG terminals and 1 underground storage). Of those, 15 PCIs (corresponding to 18
actions) were selected to receive also grants for studies or works under the 2014-2016 CEF calls for
proposals (see table 1 below).
As an ad-hoc instrument under the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework, the European Energy
Programme for Recovery (EEPR) was adopted in 2009 with the specific aim to make energy supplies
more reliable and help reduce greenhouse emissions, while simultaneously boosting Europe's economic
recovery after the gas crisis in Ukraine. Under this programme, grants for works were awarded to
selected, highly strategic projects covering three broad fields: gas and electricity infrastructure projects,
offshore wind projects and carbon capture and storage projects. Most of the budget available was
allocated to 59 promoters and 61 projects in the following sub-programmes: gas infrastructure (€1363
million, contributing to 8 projects having acquired PCI status on the first Union list of 2013); electricity
infrastructure (€904 million, contributing to 2 PCIs); offshore wind energy (€565 million); and carbon
67
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0068.png
capture and storage (€1000 million). Among those 10 PCIs only one was selected to receive a grant also
under the 2014-2016 CEF calls for proposals (see table 2 below).
Table 1: PCI supported under TEN-E (2007-2013) and continuity of funding under CEF
PCI reference
PCI
North Atlantic Green Zone Project (Ireland, UK/Northern Ireland): Lower wind curtailment by
implementing communication infrastructure, enhance grid control and establishing (cross-
border) protocols for Demand Side Management
PCI Norway – United Kingdom interconnection
PCI Belgium – two grid-ready offshore hubs connected to the onshore substation Zeebrugge (BE)
with anticipatory investments enabling future interconnections with France and/or UK
Ireland – United Kingdom Interconnection between Srananagh (IE) and Turleenan (UK – Northern
Ireland)
Internal line between Frades B, Ribeira de Pena and Feira (PT)
PCI Portugal – Spain interconnection between Vila Fria – Vila do Conde – Recarei (PT) and Beariz –
Fontefría (ES)
Interconnection between Grande Ile (FR) and Piossasco (IT) [currently known as Savoie- Piemont
project]
PCI France – Spain interconnection between Aquitaine (FR) and the Basque country (ES)
Interconnection between St. Peter (AT) and Isar (DE)
Internal line between St. Peter and Tauern (AT)
Interconnection between Eisenhűttenstadt (DE) and Plewiska (PL)
Internal line between Velk�½ Ďur and Gabčikovo (SK)
PCI Hungary – Slovakia interconnection between Sajóvánka (HU) and Rimavská Sobota (SK)
Internal line between Lemešany and Velké Kapušany (SK)
Cluster Italy – Montenegro between Villanova and Lastva
Interconnection between Lienz (AT) and Veneto region (IT)
PCI Italy – Slovenia interconnection between Salgareda (IT) and Divača — Bericevo region (SI)
Internal line between Gutinas and Smardan (RO)
Interconnection between Kilingi-Nõmme (EE) and Riga CHP2 substation (LV)
PCI Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania synchronous interconnection with the Continental European
networks
LT part of interconnection between Alytus (LT) and LT/PL border
PCI Extension of the Zeebrugge LNG terminal
PCI Connection of Malta to the European Gas network (gas pipeline with Italy at Gela and Floating
LNG Storage and Re-gasification Unit (FSRU))
PCI Gas Pipeline connecting Algeria to Italy (Sardinia) and France (Corsica) [currently known as
Galsi & Cyréné pipelines]
Poland – Czech Republic Interconnection [currently known as Stork II] between Libhošť – Hať
(CZ/PL) – Kędzierzyn (PL)
PCI Tauerngasleitung (TGL) pipeline between Haiming (AT)/Überackern (DE) – Tarvisio (IT)
PCI Onshore LNG terminal in the Northern Adriatic (IT)
Poland – Slovakia interconnection
South Kavala storage in Greece
PCI Bidirectional Austrian – Czech interconnection (BACI) between Baumgarten (AT) – Reinthal
(CZ/AT) – Brečlav (CZ)
LNG evacuation pipeline Omišalj – Zlobin (HR) – Rupa (HR)/Jelšane (SI) – Kalce (SI)
PCI Hungary – Slovenia interconnection (Nagykanizsa – Tornyiszentmiklós (HU) – Lendava (SI) –
Kidričevo)
PCI Interconnection Slovenia – Italy (Gorizia (IT)/Šempeter (SI) – Vodice (SI))
Sub-marine pipeline linking Georgia with Romania [currently known as “White Stream”]
PCI Poland–Denmark interconnection “Baltic Pipe”
PCI Poland-Lithuania interconnection [currently known as “GIPL”]
PCI Upgrade of entry points Lwówek and Włocławek of Yamal-Europe pipeline in Poland
TEN-E
CEF
Total
10.1.
1.10.
1.2.
2.13.2.
2.16.3.
2.17.
2.5.1.
2.7.
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
3.14.1.
3.16.2.
3.17.
3.18.2.
3.19.
3.2.1.
3.21.
3.8.5.
4.2.1.
4.3.
4.5.1.
5.16.
5.19.
5.20.
6.1.1.
6.16.
6.19.
6.2.1.
6.20.3.
6.4.
6.5.3.
6.23.
6.7.
7.2.3.
8.3.
8.5.
8.8.
E225/07
E308/11
E340/12
E230/07
E323/12
E288/10
E221/07
E354/13
E331/12
E256/09
E281/10 and E289/10
E353/13
E279/10
E306/11 and E242/08
E254/09
E319/12
E268/09
E310/11
E324/12
E290/10 and 227/07
E263/09
G160/09
G215/12
G186/10
G190/11
G181/10
G164/09 and G193/11
G201/11
G188/11 and G213/12
G211/12
G209/12
1
1.10-0025-UKNO-S-M-14
2.16.3-0003-PT-S-M-15
2.7.0023-FRES-S-M-14 and 2.7-0001-FRES-S-M-16
3.17-0032-SK-S-M-15
3.21-0024-SI-S-M-14
4.2.1-0027-LVLV-P-M-14
4.3-0002-LT-S-M-14
4.5.1-0005-LT-W-M-15
20
5.19-0011-MTIT-S-M-15
6.1.1-0054-CZPL-S-M-14
6.2.1-0065-PLSK-S-M-14 and 6.2.1-0019-SKPL-W-M-16
6-4-0055-CZAT-S-M-14
G209/12
6.23–0019-SI-S-M-2014
G223/13 and G175/10
G172/10, G140/07 and G156/08
G169/09 and G152/08
8.3-0019-DKPL-S-M-15
G224/13 and G184/10
8.5-0045-LTPL-S-M-14 and 8.5-0046-PLLT-P-M-14
G219/13
16
37
68
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0069.png
Table 2: PCI supported under EEPR and continuity of funding under CEF
PCI reference
PCI
EEPR
PCI Spain internal line between Santa Llogaia and Bescanó (ES) to increase capacity of the France-Spain Interconnection
interconnection between Bescanó (ES) and Baixas (FR)
(Baixas - Sta Llogaia)
PCI internal line in Germany between Halle/Saale and Schweinfurt to increase capacity in the Halle/Saale – Schweinfurt
North-South Corridor East
PCI New interconnection between Pitgam (France) and Maldegem (Belgium)
France-Belgium
interconnection
(Berneau,
Winksele)
and
(Pitgam-
Nedon & Cuvilly-Dierrey-
Voisines sections)
Val de Saône pipeline between Etrez and Voisines (FR)
Reinforcement of FR gas
network on the Africa-Spain-
France axis (Etrez / Voisines
and Lacal-Lussagnet)
PCI Slovakia – Hungary Gas Interconnection between Vel’ké Zlievce (SK) – Balassagyarmat border Slovakia-Hungary
(SK/HU) – Vecsés (HU)
Interconnector (Vel'k�½ Krtiš –
Vecsés)
Interconnection Greece – Bulgaria [currently known as IGB] between Komotini (EL) – Stara Zagora Bulgaria-Greece
(BG)
Interconnection (Stara Zagora
–Dimitrovgrad-Komotini)
Gas pipeline from Greece to Italy via the Adriatic Sea [currently known as the “Interconnector ITGI – Poseidon
Turkey-Greece-Italy” (ITGI)]
LNG storage located in Cyprus [currently known as the “Mediterranean Gas Storage”]
Cyprus project (Vasilikos,
Moni, Dhekelia)
PCI Poland–Denmark interconnection “Baltic Pipe”
Baltic pipe–Denmark (Ellund-
Egtved)
PCI Capacity extension of Świnoujście LNG terminal in Poland
Baltic
pipe
–
Poland
(Świnoujście – Szczecin)
CEF
ToT
2.6.
3.13.
2
5.13.
5.7.1.
6.3.
6.8.1.
7.1.4.
7.3.2.
8.3.
8.7.
8.3-0019-DKPL-S-M-15
8
10
69
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0070.png
Annex 11: Predecessor programme for telecommunication
CIP
The Competitive and Innovation Programme – Policy Support Programme (CIP-PSP) provided the perfect
instrument to launch large scale pilot (LSP) to develop and validate solution with MS government.
Several LSPs were launched, STORK (on eID), PEPPOL (eProcurement), epSOS (on eHealth), SPOCS
(Services Directive), eCODEX (on eJustice), eCALL (on transport emergency call) and eventually eSENS
(on the convergence of the building blocks). The issue of sustainability of the developed services
emerged quickly: it was clear that, although the approach was always federated, central component still
existed and would need EU financial and political support
10
. The CEF programme was designed
specifically for that purpose and to enable the operation of key cross border infrastructures. Because of
its centralised approach, the ISA programme could not support the deployment of the services as
needed. CEF enables to deploy and operate the central infrastructure and to support MS stakeholders to
hock the own infrastructure to it. This creates immediately cross border services for the policy identified
in the regulation.
10
CIP
ICT
PSP
Second
Interim
Evaluation.
Final
report
(2011).
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/documents/cip_ict_psp_final_second_interim_evaluati
on-final_report_2011.pdf
70
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0071.png
Annex 12: List of synergy actions
Member
Applicant*
State
CY, EL Ocean Finance
Ltd (EL)
SE, BE Swedegas AB (SE)
NL, BE Dutch Ministry of
Infrastructure
and
the
Environment (NL)
AT,DE
HR
VERBUND
AG
(AT)
HZ
INFRASTRUKTUR
A d.o.o (Croatian
Railways
Infrastructure
Ltd.)
Office of the
Prime Minister -
Energy & Projects
/ Authority for
Transport Malta
(AKA Transport
Malta)
Grupa
LOTOS
S.A..
Estimated Total Eligible Maximum Percentage of EU
Costs of the Action
EU
Financial
Multimod Studies
7,470,000 4,482,000
60.00%
al
MoS
Studies
4,382,500 2,629,500
60.00%
Multimod Studies
11,772,834 7,063,700
60.00%
al
Transport
Type
Title
CYnergy
Go4Synergy in LNG
TSO
2020:
Electric
"Transmission
and
Storage Options" along
TEN-E and TEN T
corridors for 2020
SYNERG-E
Optimization of electric
traction power supply
from
transmission
network for increasing
energy efficiency
Technical Study and
Cost- Benefit Analysis
for the Development of
LNG as a Marine Fuel in
Malta
Energy
Gas
Gas
Electricity
Electricity
Smart grid
Roads
Railway
Studies
Studies
8,712,400 5,227,440
1,689,090 1,013,454
60.00%
60.00%
MT
Gas
Maritime
Ports
Studies
1,000,000
600,000
60.00%
The small-scale LNG
Reloading Terminal in
Gdansk and bunkering
services
PL
Gas
Maritime
Ports
Studies
1,747,417 1,048,450
60.00%
71
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0072.png
Annex 13: CEF Calls 2014-2016 actual EU support per sector and country
CEF Transport: actual EU support per envelope and country
Country
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
BA
EEIG
IL
IO
MK
NO
RS
Total
General Envelope
Actual EU Support
€758.8M
€482.9M
€0.6M
€10.2M
€2.2M
€2,107.1M
€670.7M
€16.2M
€51.4M
€976.5M
€126.6M
€1,997.3M
€2.3M
€9.2M
€91.6M
€1,423.7M
€25.0M
€71.6M
€11.6M
€3.6M
€356.9M
€16.8M
€169.6M
€3.5M
€195.2M
€34.7M
€0.4M
€348.6M
€0.1M
€13.5M
€7.0M
€75.1M
€0.1M
€9.2M
€11.5M
€10,1B
Cohesion Envelope
Actual EU Support
€0.4M*
€0.0M
€405.7M
€45.0M
€1,115.1M
€0.0M
€0.0M
€191.9M
€577.3M
€0.0M
€0.0M
€0.0M
€422.2M
€1,072.3M
€0.0M
€0.0M
€367.6M
€0.0M
€255.2M
€41.7M
€0.0M
€4,136.3M
€508.0M
€1,225.5M
€0.0M
€174.7M
€704.2M
€0.4M
€0.1M
€8.5M
€0.0M
€7.4M
€0.0M
€0.0M
€0.2M
€11,3B
Total
Actual EU Support
€759.3M
€482.9M
€406.3M
€55.2M
€1,117.3M
€2,107.1M
€670.7M
€208.1M
€628.6M
€976.5M
€126.6M
€1,997.3M
€424.4M
€1,081.5M
€91.6M
€1,423.7M
€392.6M
€71.6M
€266.8M
€45.3M
€356.9M
€4,153.1M
€677.6M
€1,229.1M
€195.2M
€209.4M
€704.7M
€349.0M
€0.1M
€22.0M
€7.0M
€82.5M
€0.1M
€9.2M
€11.7M
€21,3B
The actual EU support includes reduction of
funding due to amendments, terminations and
closures
Please note that this data may differ from the
national cohesion envelope in terms of budget
allocation. This is explained because some of the
Cohesion member States supported non
cohesion countries i.e. UK and AT, international
organisations or EIEEIGs
Under countries, IO refers to International
Organisations and EEIG to European Economic
Interest Grouping
72
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0073.png
CEF Energy: actual EU support per country
Actual
EU Support
AT
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
LT
LV
MT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
UK
CH
NO
TR
Total
€0.01M
€69.1M
€15.8M
€5.0M
€50.1M
€7.2M
€166.4M
€9.3M
€6.3M
€94.1M
€17.9M
€128.2M
€2.5M
€110.4M
€112.7M
€128.7M
€0.4M
€271.7M
€1.0M
€180.8M
€27.5M
€59.7M
€73.5M
€14.0M
€26.4M
€10.3M
€1.6B
73
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0074.png
CEF Telecom: actual EU support per country
Country
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
IS
NO
RS
Total
Actual
EU Support
€5.5M
€3.3M
€1.5M
€4.1M
€2.9M
€8.9M
€6.2M
€2.3M
€5.4M
€8.4M
€4.7M
€5.9M
€3.9M
€2.6M
€4.9M
€8.7M
€3.3M
€3.6M
€1.8M
€2.2M
€7.6M
€3.9M
€4.8M
€3.5M
€1.9M
€2.7M
€1.8M
€8.2M
€1.4M
€2.2M
€0.03M
€128.3M
74
 kom (2018) 0066 - Ingen titel
1856419_0075.png
CEF Synergy: actual EU support per country
Country
AT
BE
CY
DE
EL
HR
MT
NL
PL
SE
UK
Total
Actual
EU Support
€4.2M
€0.9M
€2.6M
€1.0M
€1.7M
€1.0M
€0.6M
€6.5M
€1.0M
€1.8M
€0.2M
€22.1M
75