kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0277
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.5.2018

SWD(2018) 178 final

PART 1/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans-European transport

network

{COM(2018) 277 final} - {SEC(2018) 228 final} - {SWD(2018) 179 final}

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Glossary

Term or acronym

ACER

CBA

Appropriate Assessment

Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Cost Benefit Analysis

Former European Commission Vice-President H. Christophersen, Professor

K. Bodewig, European Coordinator, Professor C. Secchi, European

Coordinator in the "Action Plan

–

Making the best use of new financial

schemes for European transport infrastructure projects", June 2015,

Connecting Europe Facility

Core Network Corridor

European Court of Justice

European Fund for Strategic Investments

Environmental Impact Assessment

European Investment Advisory Hub

European Structural Investment Funds

European Union

Gross Domestic Product

Joint Assistance to Support Projects In European Regions

Member State

Non-governmental organisation

Net Present Value

Open Public Consultation

One-Stop-Shop

Policy Option

Public-Private Partnership

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Small and medium sized enterprises

Trans-European Network for Energy

Trans-European Network for Transport

Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of

the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No

661/2010/EU OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1–128

Meaning or definition

CBS Report

CEF

CNC

ECJ

EFSI

EIA

EIAH

ESIF

GDP

JASPERS

NGO

NPV

OPC

OSS

PPP

SEA

SME

TEN-E

TEN-T

TEN-T Regulation

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

1 INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT

1.1

Political context

The European Commission holds stimulating economic growth and boosting investment in

the real economy at the heart of its priorities. The Investment Plan for Europe, which

translates this overarching goal into operational terms, has three objectives: to make smarter

use of financial resources, to provide visibility and technical assistance to investment projects,

and to remove obstacles to investment, the so-called third pillar of the Plan. The present

initiative aims at contributing to this third pillar by helping removing obstacles to investments

in the infrastructure projects in the transport sector. Currently, some of the most complex

projects require up to 10 years

to clear all necessary administrative procedures to start works,

and for the more routine ones up to five years. It is therefore not possible to fully reap the

expected benefits of infrastructure projects in terms of growth and jobs but also wider socio-

economic benefits. The time between the political decision and the delivery of the

infrastructure asset is in fact too long to bear fruit in the short term

. Therefore, it is necessary

to unlock the potential of key transport infrastructure investments with high EU added value,

namely the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).

The EU TEN-T policy

recognises the importance of a strategic approach to developing a

Europe-wide smart, efficient and sustainable network of transport infrastructure. The TEN-T

has a dual layer structure

–

the comprehensive network shall ensure connectivity of all regions

of the EU whereas the core network consists of those elements of the network which are of

the highest strategic importance for the EU and are shown on the maps contained in Annex I

of the TEN-T regulation

. The TEN-T Regulation defines binding targets for implementation,

as the core network needs to be implemented by 2030 and the comprehensive network by

2050. The TEN-T policy

also establishes Core Network Corridors which are operational

tools to facilitate the coordinated and timely implementation of the core network.

The recent Commission Communication on boosting the potential of cross-border regions in

the EU

highlights that transport is a key enabler of exchanges between regions across

national borders. This also underlines the crucial role TEN-T is playing for the integration of

the Single Market. Infrastructure projects on cross-border connections are nevertheless the

most difficult to be developed. Especially public transport services not only help integration

processes but also enhance the sustainability of cross-border connectivity. Yet, insufficient or

low-quality public transport services are still a reality for many citizens in border regions.

Supporting the Investment Plan for Europe

The analysis carried out by the Commission on the Core Network Corridors allows for the

identification of bottlenecks and missing links as well as other relevant infrastructure projects

to ensure compliance with EU standards and the efficiency of the EU transport

. It is

estimated that the investments needed from 2021 until 2030 to complete the TEN-T core

Milieu Ltd.,

Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T core network projects,

study for DG MOVE

2017, (Henceforth: Milieu et al.), section 3.1.2, p. 36

Report

Public

Finances

EMU,

2016,

ECFIN,

ISSN

2443-8014

(online),

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ip045_en_0.pdf

Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines

for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, (Henceforth the TEN-

T Regulation)

Art. 38(1) of the TEN-T Regulation.

TEN-T Regulation

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Boosting growth and cohesion in EU

border regions, 20.9.2017, COM(2017) 534 final

The CNC work plans along with their supporting studies are available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/downloads_en

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

network amount to about €500 billion for the EU, based on inputs from Member States. The

total needs, including TEN-T comprehensive network, as well as investments in

decarbonisation, digitalisation, urban transport and maintenance are estimated to amount to

about € 1,500bn between 2021 and 2030. The achievement of the TEN-T

core network and its

corridors is expected to generate additional € 4,500bn or 1.8% of GDP

and 13 million

additional job-years by 2030

The effective and timely delivery of the TEN-T is essential for the efficient functioning of the

Single Market and also an enabler for the decarbonisation and digitalisation of transport and

the transition to low carbon mobility

.The recent Commission communications emphasise the

need to mobilise private investments in sectors critical to Europe’s future

and where market

failures remain

as well as reiterate that cross-border and sustainable transport and TEN-T

infrastructure is critical for the EU to shift to a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy

Political impetus to streamlining permitting for TEN-T

The Council of Ministers adopted conclusions

on 3 December 2014 where they considered

“that permitting

procedures are an essential part of the planning of (transport) projects, that an

early consultation and coordination of parties is crucial to streamline these procedures,

accelerate projects and avoid additional costs, thereby increasing investors’ confidence”. The

Council then invited the Commission to take stock of good practices and identify ways to

simplify procedures for projects of the core network.

The simplification of permitting rules and administrative arrangements as a means of

accelerating the implementation of the TEN-T has been identified as one of the

recommendations in the so-called CBS Report Action Plan

presented by European

Coordinators Bodewig and Secchi as well as former Vice President H. Christophersen. In

January 2018, a progress report of the implementation of their recommendations reiterated the

call to consider setting up of special (single) procurement rules for cross-border projects and

setting time limits for the permitting procedure

The complex permitting processes delaying the implementation of transport infrastructure

projects are not a typically European problem. The complexity of regulation affecting the

Delivering TEN-T, Facts & Figures,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/delivering_ten_t.pdf,

September

2017.

In the conclusions adopted on 5 December 2017, the Council reiterated its strong commitment to the implementation of the

TEN-T and the necessity to continue this policy to boost investment in transport and contribute to global objectives in

particular in terms of climate action. 15425/17 TRANS 541, available at:

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-

15425-2017-INIT/en/pdf

European Commission (2016), Europe Investing Again: Taking stock of the Investment Plan for Europe and next steps,

COM(2016) 359

"Rail

infrastructure funding from governments budgets is the prevailing source of funds which hardly can be extended

because of increasing budget constraints. New instruments to foster private-type funding such as LGTT or Project Bonds

have not been successful for railway projects as they require sufficient cash flows stemming from the projects. Recently a

better blending of instruments has been suggested by the use of concession-like funding which allows for constructing

availability-based PPPs with modest revenue streams or mixed funds combining different financial sources including road

user or externality charges." - The Results and Efficiency of Railway Infrastructure Financing within the European Union,

Study for the European Parliament, October 2015

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/552308/IPOL_STU%282015%29552308_EN.pdf

European Commission (2016|), A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility, COM(2016)501

Informal meeting of EU Transport Ministers, Building Infrastructure

to Strengthen Europe’s Economy, September 2014.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/146017.pdf

Former European Commission Vice-President H. Christophersen, Professor K. Bodewig, European Coordinator, Professor

C. Secchi, European Coordinator in the "Action Plan

–

Making the best use of new financial schemes for European transport

infrastructure

projects",

June

2015,

available

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-

guidelines/doc/2015_06_03_cbs_action_plan_final.pdf,

(Henceforth: CBS Report)

Progress Report of the Action Plan Making the best use of new financial schemes for European transport infrastructure

projects, January 2018,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/cbs2_report_final.pdf,

(Henceforth: CBS Progress

Report)

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

efficient permitting procedure has been debated in the G7 format and in the Declaration of the

Ministers adopted at the G7 Transport Ministers Meeting in Cagliari in June 2017, where the

Ministers stressed the importance of building public acceptance of infrastructure projects, of

efficient administrative procedures and of streamlining the regulatory environment

Efforts

to streamline the procedures are also made at national level, for example in Germany with the

Strategy for speeding up the planning process

which has similar objectives to this initiative

Long term investments need long term strategy

The TEN-T policy was completely revamped in 2013 with the adoption of a new regulation

defining a holistic strategy based on the establishment of the core network by 2030 and the

comprehensive network by 2050.

The TEN-T policy has nevertheless existed for 25 years and at the time of the preparation of

the current TEN-T framework, evidence already existed on the existence and impacts of

delays in permitting and other regulatory procedures. Initially it was planned to integrate the

simplification measures

also for TEN-T framework, but it was in the end considered

premature due to several factors. Namely, the reshaped TEN-T framework included already

an ambitious set of innovations, in particular in connection with the new funding instrument.

Moreover, the respective horizontal pieces of legislation such as directives on public

procurement and on environmental assessments were planned to be reviewed and adapted also

to the needs of the transport infrastructure developments. For these reasons, the current TEN-

T Regulation does not provide for specific solutions as regards the permit granting

procedures, unlike the TEN-E Regulation. As a result, the present initiative could also not be

developed as part of the REFIT programme.

Finally, it should be highlighted that no evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation is planned in the

near future. The TEN-T regulation was conceived as long term plan for at least two multi-

annual financial frameworks to provide stability, as most of the projects need ca. 10 years to

be implemented. The co-legislators have foreseen that the evaluation of the TEN-T

Regulation would only take place in 2023 to feed into a possible revision of the regulation for

the multi-annual framework post 2027.

1.2

Legal context

The investments on the core network consist of the construction of new parts of the network

as well as the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing infrastructure parts which already exist

but, either are not of sufficient quality and capacity to meet the current needs, or do not meet

the required TEN-T standards. In this context, all key EU pieces of legislation that relate to

infrastructure investments apply to TEN-T projects: in particular environment

, public

procurement

and State aid

National legislation transposing EU Directives directly govern the procedures at Member

State level, but these must be in conformity with EU legislation. The main areas for which

http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/documents/Final%20Declaration_0.pdf.

This is also in line with the efforts in the

past

years

and

still

on-going

the

United

States:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2018/02/INFRASTRUCTURE-211.pdf

https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/innovationsforum-planungsbeschleunigung-abschlussbericht.pdf?_

_blob=publicationFile

In particular: Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC, Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC,

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU amended by 2014/52/EU, Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Birds

Directive 2009/147/EC, Seveso Directive 2012/18/EU

Concessions Directive 2014/23/EU Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, Services Procurement Directive

2014/25/EU, Remedies Directive for the utilities sector 92/12/EEC amended by 2007/66/EC, Remedies Directive for the

public sector 89/665/EEC amended by 2007/66/EC

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248, p.9-29

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Member State authorities have sole competence are spatial planning

and land use and

linked sectoral planning (e.g. transport plans); and other areas such as archaeological

considerations, forestry etc. All this creates a quite complex set of rules which the project

promoters have to comply with when designing and implementing the projects of EU

importance.

The authorisation framework stems from different obligations, and sets forth the process that

projects must go through to apply for and receive development consent and procure the works

and services necessary for implementation. This occurs at two levels: the strategic level

–

planning the development of the transport network at national and/or regional level; and the

project level

–

including the planning phase and the permitting procedure, as shown in

Figure 1

below. Three inter-linked and often overlapping phases can be distinguished:



Strategic planning:

The ministry or authority responsible for transport devises a

national transport plan which provides for the long-term development and modernisation of

the transport network. It defines strategic priorities for different transport modes. A Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA)

is generally carried out, along with Appropriate

Assessment (AA) if required according to the relevant EU Directive



Project planning:

This phase assesses the timeliness and feasibility of a proposed

project, including alternatives to achieving the objectives of the project. Feasibility studies set

out the infrastructure needs and defined solutions and can include traffic analyses, cost-

benefit analyses (CBA) and environmental assessments. These may or may not be regulated

by national standards, or by the requirements of EU funding programmes such as the

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) or the European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF).

Various alternative options are assessed on the basis of economic, social and environmental

criteria. The preferred option is then integrated into the spatial plan(s). In certain countries,

the approval of the project will automatically result in amendments of the spatial plans, while

in others, a specific land-use permit will be required in addition to the construction permit. In

some cases, a major modification to a spatial or other plan to take into account a new project

may require revision to the SEA.



Permitting procedure:

The permitting procedure generally covers the activities

required to prepare an application for development consent, and follows on closely from

project planning. This phase includes the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure (EIA),

the spatial planning decision(s), and all the other permits to be granted. This phase concludes

with the acquisition and/or expropriation of the necessary land.

Public procurement procedures, State aid control, potentially other regulated procedures and

the applications for funding also form part of the preparation of an infrastructure project as

presented in the authorisation framework in Figure 1:

Generic authorisation framework

Although the EU enacted the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of

certain plans and programmes on the environment

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 1: Generic authorisation framework

Building upon the existing possibilities

Various developments in the regulatory framework applicable to the implementation of the

TEN-T projects took place in the recent years, notably a revised EIA Directive was adopted in

2014

, a new set of directives in the field of the public procurement

. In the field of State

aid, the Notice on the Notion of Aid

, the revised General Block Exemption Regulation

and

the infrastructure grids have been adopted, providing further clarifications on the rules

applicable to transport infrastructure.

However, these measures have a horizontal scope. The analysis of their application so far

allows the Commission services to assess the level of additional measures necessary for

addressing the specific needs of TEN-T projects and to define the different level of

intervention in different areas targeted on those needs

–

going from a broader perspective in

the permitting procedures where the impact of the revised measures is the least visible so far,

to public procurement where limited adjustments would only be needed in the cross-border

context. As regards State aid control, the recent clarifications address the needs of project

promoters to understand the rules applicable to transport infrastructure leaving only the issue

of the procedure.

Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on

the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L124, p. 1-18

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and

repealing Directive 2004/18/EC OJ L 94, pp. 65-242 and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors

and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, OJ L94, p. 243-347.

Commission Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, OJ C262 p. 1-50

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1084 of 14 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards aid for port

and airport infrastructure, notification thresholds for aid for culture and heritage conservation and for aid for sport and

multifunctional recreational infrastructures, and regional operating aid schemes for outermost regions and amending

Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 as regards the calculation of eligible costs, OJ L 156, p. 1–18

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1

What are the problems?

The problems identified in the analytical work leading to this initiative are the

delays

and

legal uncertainties

which impact the effective delivery of the TEN-T core network projects.

Experience with the implementation of the TEN-T projects located on the core network

corridors, as well as those in the previous legislative setting

, has shown that the completion

of the projects is very often

delayed

due to the complex regulatory and administrative

arrangements. If a given project is delayed, the positive economic and social effects meant to

be generated by this project will happen later than planned. At the same time, the problems

that the project is expected to address (e.g. congestion, bottlenecks or pollution) are going to

persist over a longer period. Moreover, the overall implementation of the core network risks

to be delayed and completion by 2030 as foreseen by the TEN-T Regulation is unlikely.

Given the transnational nature of the TEN-T, any delay impacting one project has an adverse

effect on the whole stretch of a corridor. The TEN-T framework adopted in 2013 moves from

a project driven approach (patchwork of individual projects) to a network approach based on a

dual layer TEN-T to be realised. This requires a synchronised approach for the development

of projects across the borders, both in terms of project preparation and permitting. This is

even more relevant as regards cross-border public procurement. In the case of cross-border

projects developed together by the neighbouring Member States, the joint tendering

procedures are necessary to better grasp synergies and benefits of scale.

TEN-T infrastructure projects are not often attractive to private investors. There may be

different reasons, which are also addressed in the context of the third pillar of the Investment

Plan for Europe as well as in the Progress Report of January 2018 to the CBS Report. The

complexity of some regulatory procedures in the area of project financing is one of them.

This, next to the other inefficiencies of the permit granting process, concerns in particular

perceived uncertainties with regard to State aid control but also the way permitting procedures

may affect public-private partnerships.

The Netherlands

–

a dynamic market of PPP in transport

The Netherlands is a prominent example of the development of the PPP market. According to the EPEC Market

Update 2017

it is currently the 4th largest PPP market in the EU, also beyond Germany which is the biggest

economy overall. The clarity of rules topped up with constant development of expertise in this field bore fruit

with materialisation of a high number of projects

–

also in the transport sector financed with an EFSI guarantee.

The TEN-T network as a whole cannot properly function and offer all of its benefits at EU

level before all the elements are completed. The delayed implementation of the TEN-T

network will put off the benefits the EU expects from a smart, efficient, sustainable and well-

functioning transport network, especially in light of its objectives to foster low emission

mobility in Europe. It is very well illustrated by a sequence of sections to be upgraded in one

of the busiest transport corridors across the continent

–

the Rhine Alpine CNC:

Under the former legislative framework, the TEN-T policy identified 30 Priority Projects. Several of them have been

completed but some are still on-going, the experience with Priority Projects also shows that there issues related to permitting

procedures impacted the delivery of several projects (e.g. PP17, PP18/30, PP24), Implementation of the Priority Projects,

November

2012;

MOVE

based

data

from

Member

States,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-policy/priority-

projects/doc/pp_report_nov2012.pdf

Market Update Review of the European PPP Market in 2017, EIB, March 2018

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Zevenaar

–

Emmerich

–

Oberhausen

This cross-border section located on the RhineAlpine CNC is in fact composed of two different projects

–

one

implemented by the Dutch RIM (ProRail) and the second by the German RIM DB Netz. This section is crucial to

provide capacity for growing traffic on one of the EU's busiest rail freight routes and fully use the potential of

the newly built Betuwe Line in NL. The Dutch part has already been completed; however the works on the DE

part are yet to start and currently are not foreseen to be finished before 2022, while originally planned for 2013,

i.e.

9 years of delay.

This delay, even if the project from the procedural point of view is a purely German national project, affects the

development of the Corridor and TEN-T network as a whole.

In addition, unnecessary costs can also arise when regulations or procedures are not clear

enough and the time needed for their application cannot be foreseen with an acceptable level

of certainty. The lack of predictability in the procedures leaves a

high level of uncertainty

for projects promoters and potential private investors leading ultimately to sub-optimal

investment choices. Finally, such legal uncertainty can also deter private investment from

participating in TEN-T infrastructure projects and results in increased costs in terms of access

to capital.

Several Member States have already started to develop measures at national level to address

the issue. The approach under the present initiative should not lead to unnecessary burden on

Member States that face fewer difficulties because they already have established a one stop

shop and meet the deadlines. However, a synchronised approach would trigger innovation and

improvements for the Member States that are lagging behind.

It should be borne in mind that the annual administrative costs currently incurred by the

authorities and project promoters are estimated at €21 million.

Figure 2: Problem tree

Several

root causes

leading to these problem drivers have been identified.

First, investment projects in transport infrastructure are highly complex and multidimensional

ventures which combine different elements which can create potential problems

–

these are

technical complexities related to engineering challenges, several impacts on different areas

(environmental, economic, social, political) as well as complexities related to their size and

capital required. Finding resources for their delivery can generate problems related to funding

and financial procedures.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Another root of the problem is the fact that many of the transport infrastructure projects are

linear, i.e. located in a long stretch of land having impacts along its way on all the

neighbouring pieces of land and their occupiers resulting in a high number of stakeholders

affected and multiple administrative proceeding (e.g. spatial planning in different regions and

localities).

The projects are highly susceptible to generate conflicts, as the procedures and requirements

to properly address their expected impacts may stem from different legislations and acts

adopted at different levels (from local to the EU and international level). Some project

promoters are confronted with multiple use of the infrastructure next to water supply, power

generation, agriculture etc

On top of this comes the additional complexity of the cross-border projects where all the

procedures are handled differently across the borders, also due to diverging national

transposition of relevant EU directives.

These root causes are inherent to transport infrastructure projects. However, there are other

problem drivers that impact delays and uncertainties in the TEN-T project implementation,

which range from technical (project preparation capacity, feasibility, engineering complexity

and other technical issues), to political and funding issues. They remain outside the scope of

this impact assessment and the present initiative.

In particular, the problems related to the availability of funding (beyond the EU contribution),

technical challenges as well as administrative capacity of either project promoters or

supervising authorities, cannot be effectively address by the present initiative. Either it is

beyond the mandate of the EU action or it is addressed already elsewhere, for example via

dedicated instruments such as technical assistance in funding programmes (e.g. CEF

programme support actions) or horizontal mechanisms (e.g. voluntary ex ante assessment in

the public procurement area). However, the problems referred to above

–

delays due to

procedures and high level of uncertainty due to procedures

–

can be effectively addressed by

tackling the above problem drivers as presented in this impact assessment.

2.2

Lessons learnt from the TEN-E experience

Since 2013, the TEN-E Regulation

contains provisions aiming at reducing the timeframes

for authorising the projects of common interest in the TEN-E. It also introduced the concept

of the single authorising authority for all the permit granting processes. The TEN-E

experience has therefore been duly taken into account.

This was done in the context of the two supporting studies for the present impact assessment

by also interviewing the relevant services in the Directorate General for Energy of the

European Commission and reviewing any available useful analysis.

According to the Commission's recent assessment; it has proven successful with bringing the

average duration of the permit granting process in energy transmission projects from 10 years

to an expected 3.5 years and is a useful guidance for the solutions presented in this initiative

This is particularly the case with waterborne projects where the transport function of the infrastructure is only one of its

objectives.

Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-

European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009,

(EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009, p.39

According to the analysis of ACER, the average duration of permitting expected by PCI promoters in the pool of 96

electricity PCIs is 3.5 years. For gas, the average permit granting duration for the pool of assessed 54 PCIs was 3.2 years.

Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Commission Delegated Regulation amending

Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common

interest, Annex II, SWD (2017) 425 final

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

2.3

Who is affected by the problem?

The problem mainly affects three categories of actors: project promoters, public

administrations at local, regional or national level and civil society often represented by

NGOs. A detailed analysis on the categories of actors which are affected by the problem is

presented in Annex 3 to the present impact assessment report.

2.4

Getting evidence to evaluate the current situation

To best evaluate the situation, the Commission carried out an extensive analysis of the

situation and possible solutions. It completed an exploratory study, which made

recommendation to improve and better coordinate authorisations procedures for infrastructure

projects

. This exploratory study conducted an extensive analysis of the problem and 17 pre-

selected cases were screened. Further in-depth studies examined the regulatory and

administrative frameworks for transport projects in ten selected Member States to identify the

sources of delay, cost and uncertainty, as well as good practices. The selection of countries, in

combination with the countries represented in the ten project case studies, has ensured that the

research reflected the general picture across the EU

The study findings regarding the organisation of the permitting procedure were that delays in

permitting often occur due to overly complex procedures, involving multiple steps and

multiple authorities. A single permitting authority was proposed for TEN-T projects, together

with overall time limits for the permitting procedures. It also found that projects face

considerable delays when challenged by the public or stakeholders due to the quality of the

procedures used to engage the public and due to timing, i.e. the point at which those

procedures take place during the process of project preparation. It suggested measures such as

requirement for public involvement before a permitting application is submitted, establishing

principles for the conduct of public consultation procedures for TEN-T projects, carrying out

public information campaigns and improvements to the process for appeals of decisions on

development consent.

For delays due to environmental assessment, it proposed mandatory joint procedure for all

environmental assessment procedures stemming from EU legislation, various technical

clarifications and providing more dedicated external technical assistance services for the

preparation of TEN-T projects, focused on environmental assessments. In public procurement,

the delays would be partly addressed once the recent revisions of relevant EU directives are

fully implemented in the coming years. A special procurement regime aiming at speeding up

cross-border procurement and review procedures was proposed. As regards State aid

notifications, the study identified two key issues at the Member State level driving delays and

uncertainty, namely late notification by the Member State and the poor quality of notifications

(including information gaps). In addition, the study suggested reducing State aid decision

timeframes for selected TEN-T projects.

2.5

What are the problem drivers?

Five underlying causes to the problems have been identified and are described below as

problem drivers.

2.1.1

Multiple stages and authorities involved in permitting procedures

Permitting procedures in the Member States differ greatly in the number of necessary permits

and decisions to be obtained, as illustrated in Table 1. The number of authorities and levels of

Milieu et al

The TEN project case studies concern the following Member States: Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the

Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom, Austria and Spain.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

governance that may be involved in permitting procedures, as well as their competence and

power in the procedure also vary significantly across Member States. Among the ten Member

States analysed in detail in the exploratory study

, four have a single-stage permitting

procedure

, where all permitting decisions (environment, spatial planning etc.) are handled

through a single development consent procedure. While only one permitting authority grants

the final decision, consultation of other authorities generally remains a prerequisite, as the

different assessments may relate to policy areas that are within the domain of other

authorities. The other six countries have multi-stage permitting procedures

In addition to the statutory permits and decisions, binding opinions or decisions of a number

of authorities can be necessary before the permitting authority can issue a permit. The large

number of permitting authorities involved is in part due to the wide scope of impacts

considered in environmental assessments. The internal organisation of Member States and the

level of decentralisation are others relevant factors potentially increasing the number of

authorities involved in the procedure.

Five of the Member States analysed in the exploratory study have integrated various steps

–

environmental permit, spatial planning and construction permit

–

into a single permitting

procedure (Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). In Austria,

Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, environmental and spatial planning decisions

are integrated into a single development consent procedure. In Germany, all decisions on

environmental assessments and other permits are integrated in the plan approval procedure;

however spatial planning remains separate (Regional planning procedure), and precedes the

plan approval procedure. In the Netherlands, land use plans are automatically updated when

the development consent is granted, avoiding the completion of a separate spatial planning

decision

These efforts, even if in many cases effective, are not sufficient to form an EU-wide approach

and provide for a synchronised implementation of the TEN-T. First, they are not

systematically coupled with time limits (see specifically Section 00) and secondly these

measures are not undertaken by the other Member States (even if some of their streamlined

approaches are very successful

–

e.g. integrated permitting in Poland for national roads and

railways). But since even the purely national projects affect the developments on the other

parts of the Corridors and TEN-T network, as explained also in the Problem section, a

harmonising effort across the EU is needed.

Furthermore, the 2018 CBS Progress Report highlights that delays in permitting are often due

to multiple steps and authorities and recommends the introduction of a simplified process or

at least a mandatory joint procedure for all environmental assessments at project level.

The situation of multiple stages and authorities involved in permitting procedures is described

in further details in Annex 5, section 1. The results of the Open Public Consultation carried

out for this initiative show that all the categories of stakeholders (98 respondents) with one

exception fully or rather agree that permitting procedures are complex and lengthy when it

comes to the TEN-T projects (Figure 2 in Annex 2). Moreover, permitting procedures in

relation to the TEN-T projects are perceived as suboptimal by most respondents (59 out of 95)

to the Open Public Consultation (Figure 5 in annex 3).

It is worth noting that all categories of respondents including governments disagree with the

statement that permitting procedures are organised in an optimal way (Figure 3 in Annex 3).

Annex 3 to the Milieu et al., Country executive summaries.

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain. For details see Table 2 in the Annex 1 to Milieu et al.

Milieu et al. Annex 6 Guide of good practices, p. 11

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Why does it drive the problem?

As evidenced in the exploratory study

, factors of delay, costs and uncertainty in permitting

procedures are often rooted in procedural aspects. TEN-T projects have multiple impacts on

land-use and the environment, often require conducting multiple environmental assessments,

and, given their size, can fall under several jurisdictions if the procedure is handled at regional

or local level. Consequently, in some Member States, permitting procedures are complex,

involving many steps and permitting authorities, leading to duplication of permits and

applications to be submitted by project promoters, duplication of or overlaps in assessment

procedures, and significant administrative burden and costs for both the project promoters and

permitting authorities. The higher the number of different authorities involved in the

permitting procedure (either as permitting authority or consulted authority), the more complex

it becomes to gather all of the intermediate decisions required to grant the final permit.

Cross-border projects are particularly vulnerable to the problems described above. The

number of permits, the sequence of approvals, time limits, and requirements for public

consultation can vary greatly between countries and can result in permitting procedures

happening at different speeds on either side of the border

2.1.2

Absent or unenforced time limits

In some Member States, time limits are set out in the legislation for the main permits (EIA,

spatial planning) and public consultations, as illustrated in Table 1. However, global time

limits for the entire permitting procedure have not been fixed in any Member State, even

where an integrated permitting procedure exits (e.g. Germany). Time limits for environmental

assessments generally exist, at least for certain procedures, in particular for screening and

scoping, and public consultation. The 2014 amendment to the EIA Directive introduced time

limits for screening decisions. However, the competent authority has the possibility, in

exceptional cases related to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, to extend

this deadline

Stakeholders often mentioned that missing documentation or documentation of poor quality

was the reason why the permit cannot be issued within the time limit, as additional data had to

be requested to the applicant, which often stops the procedure

In most of the Member States analysed in the exploratory study

, sanctions are not applied in

case of missed deadlines. Only in Romania, authorities responsible for issuing different

certificates or notifications can be fined if they do not respect the timelines for issuing

documents, as required by the law.

Why does it drive the problem?

Case studies conducted for this impact assessment showed that large cross-border

infrastructure projects generally exceed ten years from early planning to construction. In the

ten Member States studied, the duration of the permitting procedure (from the submission of

the application to the last permit granted) was, according to interviewed stakeholders,

between two and five years

. Regardless of the source of the problem, one way of addressing

Milieu et al., section 3.1.1, p. 31

A prime example is the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, where the approval process went quite smoothly in Denmark,

while the approval in Germany is still dependent on the completion of several rounds of public hearings.

In that event the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the

date when its determination is expected (Article 4(6)).

For details see consultations done in the context of the exploratory study

–

Annex 5 to the Milieu et al.

Annex 1 to Milieu et al., Problem Definition, Section 1.1.3

Only countries were stakeholders provided information on the duration of the permitting procedure (excluding preparation

of the application) were considered in this average.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

lengthy procedures is to establish time limits, to incentivise permitting authorities to adopt

measures and/or administrative practices accelerating the granting of permits. However,

global time limits for the entire permitting procedure have not been fixed in any Member

State, even where an integrated permitting procedure exits

Table 1: Permit granting procedures in selected Member States

Number of

Member

permitting

procedures

Time Limits

State

authorities

required

Austria

Czech

Republic

Germany

Hungary

1-3

4 (+ 10-15

opinions)

7-9

1-2 (+)

9-12 months for

EIA

45-90 days per

procedure

Final approval: no

time limit

No legal time

limits

30-42 days per

procedure

150 days for EIA

Average

duration

according to

stakeholders

15 years

Fast-track procedures

n/a

3-4 years

n/a

4-6

2 years

1-4 years

n/a

Possibility to conduct several

procedures in parallel

Legge Obbietivo (2001),

Development consent granted on

preliminary project Tighter time

limits for decision-taking

Limitations of legal standing of

municipalities, time limits for

judgements in appeals

Number of permits needed reduced

to 2 or 3, land covered by permit

becomes automatically property of

State Treasury

Development consent granted with

preliminary approvals regarding

forest land and utilities

Automatic change of agricultural

land into constructible land once

the ownership title is transferred to

the state Extension of validity of

permits until the end of the

construction works

n/a

Italy

Up to 10 years

The

Netherlands

2 years

1-2 months

(standard rules of

the code of

administrative

procedures)

6 years

Poland

2-4

2-3

1.5-4 years

Romania

6-7

6-12 months EIA,

5-165 days per

other procedures

2-5 years

Spain

United

Kingdom

24 months for

SEA

9 months for EIA

12 months (9 in

Scotland)

Not available

Two years

Source: European Commission based on Milieu et al., 2016.

2.1.3

Differing public procurement procedures for cross-border TEN-T projects

Challenges related to public procurement

Public procurement can bring major challenges to TEN-T projects. The research carried out

for the exploratory study

showed that problems in the procurement phase can result in

delays and increased costs for projects. Delays in the completion of the procurement phase

In most of the Member States selected for analysis in the exploratory study, time limits have been set out in the legislation

for the main permits (EIA, spatial planning) and public consultations (Milieu et al. Annex 3, Country Executive Summaries).

Milieu et al., Section 3.4, p. 56

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

appear to be the consequence of a complex legal framework, the absence of time limits for the

award procedure and, in particular, the long review procedures to challenge the award

decision. Increased costs are directly related to delays but also to the selection of poor quality

projects, which appears to be mainly driven by the lack of capacity of contracting authorities

to conduct procurement procedures. These challenges are even more prominent for cross-

border projects and still remain to be addressed as explained below.

The legal framework for public procurement within the EU is set out in Directive

2014/23/EU, on the award of concession contracts; Directive 2014/24/EU, on public

procurement; and Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water,

energy, transport and postal services sectors. The ‘new’ EU Public Procurement Directives

had to be transposed into the Member States’ national legal orders by 18 April 2016. The

main objective of the new Directives is to simplify procedures and at the same time make

these procedures more flexible

; this is likely to contribute to tackling some of the problems

identified above.

The problems linked to cross-border cooperation and differences in the ways in which

Member States have transposed the legislation may not be fully tackled by the new

legislation. This clearly comes out as a result of the targeted workshop organised specifically

on public procurement

. Moreover, the full extent of potential problems linked to partial or

incorrect transposition, gold-plating, and differences across Member States will only be

known once a conformity-checking exercise of transposition of these new Directives has been

completed

. It may therefore be the case that the new measures will improve the situation

regarding complexities and delays related to public procurement procedures for TEN-T

projects, and this needs to be taken into account when assessing policy options in this area.

One of the main purposes of EU public procurement is ‘to achieve smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth while ensuring the most efficient use of public funds’

. However, public

procurement procedures can be a challenge for the smooth implementation of large

infrastructure transport projects. This has been recognised in the 2015 CBS Report ‘Action

Plan

Making the best use of new financial schemes for European transport infrastructure

projects’

which included a series of recommendations to ‘streamline and simplify

procurement procedures’

Remaining complexity of the legal framework

The exploratory study

found that, within the transport sector, and more specifically within

the context of TEN-T projects, in six out of the ten Member States covered by the study the

perception is the same

–

the complexity of the applicable rules (mainly resulting from the

transposition and application of the old EU Public Procurement Directives) is considered an

obstacle to a quicker public procurement procedure.

The simplification of procurement procedures is envisaged to take place through the establishment of shorter procedural

deadlines or the resort to e-procurement and other measures to reduce paperwork. Flexibility is improved through the

possibility of using innovation partnerships, broader possibilities for negotiation with tenderers (competitive procedure with

negotiation) and the use of best quality-price award criteria (including the total lifecycle cost). See for instance DG MARKT

leaflet “New Rules on Public Contracts and Concessions – Simpler and More Flexible”, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publications/docs/public-procurement-and-concessions_en.pdf

Conclusions of the Stakeholders Workshop Smart and effective public procurement for TEN-T cross-border projects,

Brussels, 15 June 2017,

A conformity checking of the three Directives will be conducted by DG GROW in 2017. The contract notice for

consultancy services for completeness and compliance checks of national transposition measures and other legal assessment

services in the field of EU public procurement law, no. 2016/S 125-222903, was published on 21 June 2016. The notice is

available on TED.

See e.g. Recital 4 of Directive 2014/25/EU

CBS Report

Annex 1 to Milieu et al., Problem Definition, Section 2.1.2

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

It appears therefore that the complexity of the legal framework and the application of

differing public procurement rules to projects developed in a cross-border context can also

lead to delays and increase legal uncertainty.

Recent developments in the area of public procurement

Since 2017, the Commission has taken some initiatives to accompany the implementation of

public procurement legislation. In particular, a voluntary ex-ante mechanism has been set up

to enable the project promoters and other relevant actors to get targeted assistance and

assessment from the Commission when developing the procurement strategies for their

projects as well as the stage of launching the procurement procedures. This mechanism

consists of three elements: a helpdesk

, a notification mechanism

and an information

exchange mechanism.

Notwithstanding, the usefulness of all these elements for contracting authorities and project

promoters, the mechanism is however not binding, only provides a compliance assessment

and is not automatically open to all TEN-T projects. Certain thresholds apply

–

as a principle

only project beyond 500 million EUR can ask for advice. TEN-T projects of common interest

may use the mechanism but only if a decision on the admissibility which will be taken on a

case by case basis. This may limit the attractiveness of the instrument to promoters of

medium-sized projects.

Why do complexities specific to cross-border procurement drive the problem?

Cross-border projects face specific difficulties in conducting public procurement. This has

been highlighted by the project promoters for a long time was confirmed in the public

consultation carried out for the exploratory study. They include legal barriers, language

barriers and lack of experience in doing business in other countries

Brenner Base Tunnel

This cross-border project is one of the emblematic TEN-T projects aiming at linking together different parts of

the EU. Since the very beginning it was conceived as a long-term asset worth in total 8bn EUR.

In the case of project of this size, a delay of the EIA procedure of 1.5 years in 2006-2007 generated significant

losses as a result of inflation and cost of financing.

Moreover, as a result of procurement issues, delays in the start of phase III/works (2011) of about 19 months

caused a shift of the finalisation of the project from 2025 to 2026 and led to additional costs of about 20mn EUR

(including additional time till finalisation).

Some of these deficiencies were addressed with the adoption of the new procurement

directives in 2014. Nevertheless, there are other issues that are still not regulated at EU level,

as noted in the 2015 CBS Action Plan, namely ‘the use of a single language in tender

and

contracting documents’. These problems were reiterated in the Progress Report presented in

January 2018.

According to the new rules, the participating contracting entities can agree to apply the

Communication from the Commission to the Institutions: Helping investment through a voluntary ex-ante assessment of

the procurement aspects for large infrastructure projects, COM(2017) 573

National authorities can contact the helpdesk on specific issues they face when developing the procurement plan for a

project. These questions could, for example, concern the applicable EU legal framework governing the project (procurement

or utilities directives; concessions directive, etc.), conditions for exclusions from the directives, procurement procedures to be

used, selection and award criteria, etc.

The notification mechanism is designed to enable the project promoters to receive the Commission's views on the

compliance with EU procurement legislation.

For example, the case studies also showed that differences in national legislation can lead to significant delay. The

complex legal framework for procurement applied in France and Italy in the Lyon-Turin case gave rise to prolonged

discussions between both countries on the implementation of the applicable EU rules. The implementation of specific

measures to prevent criminal infiltrations in public procurement was one of the specific points of discussion, since French

and Italian law did not implement European law in a similar way at national level.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

national procurement rules of the Member State where the joint entity has its registered office

or the national provisions of the Member State where the joint entity is carrying out its

activities. In addition, they can choose to apply this agreement for an undetermined period,

when fixed in the constitutive act of the joint entity, or limit its application to a certain period

of time, certain types of contracts or to one or more individual contract awards.

The new public procurement directives allow for a margin of discretion in the choice of the

applicable law, the participating contracting entities struggle to decide on which law to apply

and that the scope of application of the agreement ends up being significantly reduced (e.g.

applying only during a certain period of time). In addition, these new rules do not seem fully

satisfactory for infrastructure projects promoters who still mention the application of different

national legal frameworks as the most difficult area for public procurement in the context of

cross-border projects

2.1.4

Coordination challenges for the delivery of cross-border projects

Cross-border projects face particular challenges that impact the timing and efficiency of

delivery. The involvement of more than one Member State, and often of multiple regional

and/or local authorities, can particularly impact the timely completion of permitting

procedures. Any delay or obstacle on one side of a border will necessarily impact project

delivery on the other side, as project promoters will not proceed with a project until the

delivery on both sides of the border can be assured. Given the priority that TEN-T policy

gives to cross-border projects

, TEN-T core network projects are likely to be particularly

impacted by these challenges.

Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link

According to the latest information the German plan approval process for the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project

could only be finalised by summer 2018. Initially, the plan approval process was expected to be completed by

autumn 2015, which means

so far more than 3 years of delay.

Only after this approval, the construction of the

tunnel and access routes on Danish and German side could start. However, it is expected that the plan approval

will be brought to the federal administrative court which could result in additional two years of delay. This

planning process concerns the German part of the Fixed Link itself, as well as the German access routes and is a

prerequisite for the construction phase.

Why does it drive the problem?

Cross-border projects encounter specific problems arising out of inconsistencies between

legal permitting frameworks and procedures across Member States. As demonstrated in

previous section of this report, the number of permits, the sequence of approvals, time limits,

requirements for public consultation can vary greatly between countries and can result in

permitting procedures happening at different speeds on either side of the border. Increased

coordination of procedures is key in cross-border projects to ensure that the project can

develop at roughly the same pace. Different procedures and sequence of permitting

procedures generally impact the whole approval process and create time gaps between

authorisations in both countries. Detailed description on how the cross-border contexts (such

as transboundary EIAs and strategic planning) affect the permitting of the TEN-T projects is

contained in Annex 5.

Results of the open public consultation being part of the IA process. The Complex procurement in the Rail Baltica cross-

border project is illustrated in the Progress Report of the Action Plan Making the best use of new financial schemes for

European transport infrastructure projects. It highlights the difficulties regarding public procurement for the Joint Venture RB

RAIL AS which has the sole responsibility for defining the procurement contracts. However, contracts are governed by the

law of the state where the works are performed.

See, for example, recital 13 of the TEN-T Regulation.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

2.1.5

Perceived uncertainties related to State aid procedures

State aid control makes sure that State resources mobilised for investments do not lead to

unjustified distortion of completion. Some transport authorities may however find State aid

notifications challenging, given that in the past investments in transport infrastructure was

considered to fall outside State aid rules

Given the objective to attract more investors to the sector (blending of private and public

financing), there will be more and more situations where the State aid control clearance will

be of importance in the implementation of the TEN-T projects. Some streamlining measures

in this respect have already been applied in the context of the implementation of the European

Fund for Strategic Investments which provided for the possibility of priority treatment of the

projects benefitting from the support of the European Fund for Strategic Investments

Why does it drive the problem?

The exploratory study

determined that the two main problems at the Member State level

driving delays and uncertainty in State aid notifications are late notification and the poor

quality of notifications (including information gaps). Cases of late notification generally come

from a lack of awareness from authorities or project promoters of the need to notify potential

State aid cases to the Commission. In addition, the lack of experience with State notifications

in some authorities may lead to notifications that are of a lower quality. This can result in the

Commission having to request further information to clarify the facts, lengthening the time

needed to have a complete notification necessary for adopting a decision. Some project

promoters may also be uncertain about the applicability of State aid rules to their project may

also need to seek expert opinions, contributing to additional project costs. There has been

important progress in clarifying the State aid rules applicable to the transport infrastructure

projects in recent years. In May 2016 the Commission adopted the Notice on the Notion of

aid

where the Commission clarified in particular when public funding for infrastructure

projects falls within the scope of EU State aid control. In 2014 new Aviation Guidelines

were adopted and in May 2017 the revised General Block Exemption Regulation as regards

aid for port and airport infrastructure

was adopted in 2017. In addition, the Commission

services published so-called "analytical grids" on the application of State aid rules to the

public financing of infrastructure (e.g. for ports, airports, road and rail infrastructure)

However, the CBS Progress Report proposes to make further steps, also in light of the request

of some stakeholders (for example in the light of what already exists as regards the priority

treatment of certain cases on mobilising investments

). As acknowledged by stakeholders

during the workshop devoted to governance and State aid issues, ex-ante appraisal of State aid

compliance is crucial for the financial sector to engage in a project. Therefore, the Progress

Case T-128/98, Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities, European Court of Justice, 2000; Joined

Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08 Freistaat Sachsen, Flughafen Leipzig/Halle et al v Commission of the European Communities,

European Court of Justice, 2011, ECR II-1311

European Commission, MEMO/15/5419

Milieu et al., Section 3.5, p. 66

Commission Notice on the notion of State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, OJ C 262 of 19.7.2016, p.1-50

Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines, OJ C 99, 4.4.2014, p. 3.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1084 of 14 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards aid for port

and airport infrastructure, notification thresholds for aid for culture and heritage conservation and for aid for sport and

multifunctional recreational infrastructures, and regional operating aid schemes for outermost regions and amending

Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 as regards the calculation of eligible costs, OJ of 20.06.2017, L 156, p.1-18

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/notice_aid_en.html

Under the Investment Plan for Europe, projects benefiting from the EFSI may combine in their financial schemes also

sources of financing which are considered as State aid, also e.g. ESI Funds. In order to simplify and accelerate their

implementation, the Commission has committed to assess the compliance of ESI Funds with State aid rules as a matter of

priority and to give it fast-track treatment. The Commission aims to complete its assessment within six weeks of receiving the

complete notification from the Member State. European Commission, MEMO/16/313

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Report recommends a swift appraisal procedure by the European Commission if a project is in

conformity with State aid rules to be generalised in order to clear the project upfront and thus

provide legal certainty and predictability about the overall investment.

The Commission carries out its assessment of State aid compliance only once the notification

is complete. Therefore, it encourages Member States to make use of the pre-notification

procedure which can help the Member States to submit complete notifications. In addition, the

Commission gives the possibility to Member States for important and complex projects to

establish a mutually agreed planning clearly setting out the timeline and milestones, and the

information that needs to be delivered, ensuring a swift adoption of the decision once the

notification takes place. This provides Member States with the possibility to agree with the

Commission to a priority treatment of the case.

2.6

How will the problem evolve?

Without EU intervention, the implementation of the current legislative framework will

continue to result in

delays

and

legal uncertainties

which impact the effective delivery of the

TEN-T projects. As explained in section 2.2, given the transnational nature of the TEN-T, any

delay impacting one project has an adverse effect on the whole stretch of a corridor. Overall,

the implementation of the core TEN-T network, as foreseen by the TEN-T Regulation, is

unlikely to be achieved by 2030.

This situation is not expected to be significantly changed by the transposition of the

amendments to the EIA Directive which is meant to be effective as of May 2017. While these

amendments are expected to facilitate EIAs for cross-border projects, they do not foresee the

complete integration and coordination of permitting procedures, do not introduce an overall

time limits for all authorisations and provide for a possibility of optional schemes for

conducting cross-border consultations through a joint body. The provisions in the revised EIA

directive do not suffice for the needs of the TEN-T projects also as they only allow for

integrating assessments required under the EIA, Habitats and Birds directives where

appropriate and as the integration of assessments based on other pieces of EU legislation (e.g.

water framework directive) remains optional.

In a similar way, this situation would not be significantly changed for the needs of TEN-T

projects by the latest revisions of the EU Public Procurement Directives which were meant to

be effective in national law since nearly two years. In case of the cross-border procurement,

the Directives leave to the Member States to choose the applicable legal framework. The

application of the rules to cross-border TEN-T projects would not improve the current

situation as the decision will still be taken

ad hoc,

subject to changing political priorities,

without providing the necessary stability to the project promoters.

Furthernore, the mentioned EU law on environmental assesment and public procurement has

general nature and broader scope while for TEN-T infrastructure projects, more targeted

measures appear necessary .

The risk of inadequate transposition or in diverging ways of this transporsition across the

borders of these recent pieces of legislation cannot be excluded on the basis of the current

experience. Further explanations are made in chapter 5.1 regarding the baseline scenario.

The administrative costs incurred by the authorities is estimated at €185 million

for 2018-

2030 (expressed as present value) in the baseline scenario and for project promoters at €937

million over the same time period. Overall, the administrative burden is projected at €1,122

million for 2018-2030, expressed as present value.

Source: Panteia, PwC, M-FIVE Impact Assessment support study (2018) (henceforth: Panteia et al). More details on the

assumptions used for the administrative burden are provided in Annex 4.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Finally, the suboptimal framework for the involvement of private investors remains on top of

the other problem drivers and has a direct consequence: the investors' base will not expand

and transport infrastructure projects will remain unattractive for private investors in many

areas of the EU. This will limit the number of projects going ahead as the biggest financial

burden will remain on the public expenditures.

3 WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?

3.1

The EU's right to act

The EU’s competence to act in relation to transport

networks is set out in Article 170 of the

TFEU, which requires the EU to ‘contribute to the establishment and development of trans-

European networks’ in the area of transport. In detailing what EU action in this area could

include, Article 171(2) states

that ‘Member States shall, in liaison with the Commission,

coordinate among themselves the polices pursued at national level which may have a

significant impact’ on the objective of the establishment of trans-European

networks, and the

‘Commission may,

in close cooperation with the Member States, take any useful initiative to

promote such coordination’.

Hence, EU action to set out a framework to streamline the permitting and preparation of

projects integral to the establishment of the TEN-T network is

within the scope of the EU’s

right to act. The EU shares competence in this area with the Member States.

3.2

Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action

The transnational nature of the TEN-T network is clear. This is particularly evident in relation

to cross-border projects; however, the corridor approach adopted in the TEN-T Regulation is

inherently transnational

– this approach is intended to ‘coordinate different projects on a

transnational basis and synchronise the development of the corridor’

. This coordinated,

transnational approach is unlikely to be adequately addressed by Member State action alone.

Permitting procedures in Member States differ greatly in the number of necessary permits and

decisions to be obtained. The number of authorities and levels of governance that may be

involved in permitting procedures, as well as their competence and power in the procedure

also vary significantly across Member States. The delays stemming from these procedures

have however significant impact on the TEN-T core network completion.

In terms of public procurement, problems appear to be more related to the way applicable

public procurement framework is organised at national level, in particular the long review

procedures which appear to be main cause of delays. In case of cross border projects, the

problems also stem from the differences in transposition of relevant EU law at national level.

For cross-border projects, Member States face similar difficulties when it comes to

coordination of public procurement and interpretation of the applicable EU rules, as well as

coordination of transboundary environmental assessments.

While according to the results of the Open Public Consultation, national and regional

authorities appear less confident that the EU should act, still the majority of stakeholders who

participated in this consultation express themselves in favour of the EU taking action in this

field (75 out of 99 respondents). The vast majority of individual respondents believe in the

effectiveness of the EU action in this field (16 out of 21 answers). In this sense, the results of

the Open Public Consultation confirmed the conclusions of the three dedicated workshops

carried out in 2017 and as well as of the interviews and consultations run in the Exploratory

Study as shown in Figure 4 Annex 2.

Recital 43, TEN-T Regulation

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

3.3

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 aims at delivering an efficient, smart and

sustainable transport network that underpins the single European transport area. This overall

strategy is expected to promote low emission mobility, to enable the decarbonisation and

digitalisation of transport, to benefit all users of the EU transport systems

–

businesses and

citizens but also to generate investments, economic growth and jobs.

The implementation of the TEN-T requires significant coordination efforts of the various

projects in order to fully exploit the overall network benefits at EU level. In this respect, the

delivery of the TEN-T network relies on the efficient synchronisation not only of the

investments but also of the implementation pace of individual projects to avoid time gaps and

reap all benefits from a network approach. This is the approach that has been developed with

the TEN-T regulation adopted in 2013. Several tools have been established to generate the

European added value expected from the TEN-T network. These include the definition of

harmonised standards for greater interoperability, sustainability and efficiency, the

development of core network corridors to bridge missing links and remove main bottlenecks,

the appointment of European coordinators to facilitate the coordination of relevant actors and

the creation of the Connecting Europe Facility and other funding instruments to provide EU

support for investments. However, no coordination tools or mechanisms are yet in place in

the transport sector

–

and contrary to others such as energy

–

to address the needs for

synchronisation, coherence and efficiency in the delicate phase of the planning and the

implementation of infrastructure projects.

Indeed, infrastructure projects on the TEN-T core network face a number of challenges in

regulatory and administrative processes that impact effective and efficient planning and

implementation of TEN-T network. Such challenges in permitting procedures, environmental

assessment procedures and public procurement practices contribute to increased delays, cost

and uncertainty during the planning and preparation of core network projects. This is

particularly the case of TEN-T cross-border projects which may be implemented across one or

more Member States by a single entity (joint venture) like for Rail Baltica, Brenner Base

Tunnel, Fehmarn Belt etc. Unnecessary complexity and duplication of efforts can be avoided

by applying the same or coordinating the procedures across the border with a view to

maximise synergies and reap the benefits of a European approach. Otherwise, these

infrastructure projects are confronted with a multitude of national procedures, differing

requirements and regulatory fragmentation.

The policy options presented aim to help the EU achieve the overall objectives of TEN-T

policy. They specifically address some of the problems faced by TEN- T core network

projects by seeking to streamline permitting, environmental assessment, procurement and

State aid processes without prejudice of the content of the legislation underpinning these

procedures. The objective of reducing delays and uncertainties can be more efficiently met by

providing a stable and clear framework at the EU level

3.4

Why act now?

Several reasons plead for introducing now streamlining measures for the implementation of

the TEN-T projects.

The TEN-T Regulation requires the completion of the core network by 2030. This means that

there are less than 13 years left to complete all the necessary projects. Based on the fact that in

extreme cases the process of project preparation in terms of obtaining permits and designing

the technical and financial structure of project lasts around 10 years, no delays can be

afforded to meet the deadline. Of course, not all projects are at that level of complexity and it

may take less time to prepare them.. A conservative calculation as explained in Section 5.1

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

shows that in average projects are delayed by approximately 2 years.

The EU economy is still recovering from the economic and financial crisis which resulted in a

clear drop in public and private investment in infrastructure. The European Commission has

placed the relaunch of investment in the real economy at the very centre of its priorities for

2014-2019. This is the main raison d'être of the Investment Plan for Europe, which third pillar

concentrates on the removal of administrative barriers hampering investments and the related

benefits.

As a result, many of the TEN-T projects are planned only now to start being implemented in

the coming years. These projects will benefit from the streamlined measures and be less prone

to delays. This is particularly relevant to foster an effective implementation of TEN-T

infrastructure projects in the current and next multi-annual financial frameworks.

The present initiative results from a long reflection process launched at the beginning of the

current Commission to contribute to implementing its priorities. As already presented before,

the CBS Progress Report clearly summarises the evolution of the reforms of the permitting

processes and other authorisations procedures of which are subject TEN-T infrastructure

projects are still not sufficient and more ambitious solutions are needed. After a long period of

consultation and analysis

–

started already in 2014 with the Council conclusions under the

Italian Presidency

–

the material and evidence gathered is solid enough to identify the main

problems and propose solutions with initiating the legislative proposal. Recently, the TTE

Council adopted in December 2017 conclusions on the progress of the Trans-European

Transport Network (TEN-T) implementation and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for

transport which very much support the continuation of this infrastructure policy and

encourage the Commission to give follow up to the reflections on the regulatory environment

of the implementations of TEN-T projects

4 OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?

4.1

General objectives

The general objective of initiative on streamlining TEN-T implementation is addressing the

delays and the high level of uncertainty which impact the effective delivery of the TEN-T

core network projects. It will contribute to the objective set in Article 170 TFUE to establish

and develop the trans-European transport network as well as to promote the interconnection

and interoperability of national networks.

In particular, this initiative aims at accelerating the benefits of the implementation of a fully

interoperable and interconnected transport network linking the main economic centres and all

the Member States. It will help maximise the impact of the existing national networks

requiring upgrades to meet the TEN-T interoperable parameters as well as bridge missing

links in Europe. Since the development of the TEN-T focuses on the sustainable modes of

transport, this initiative directly contributes to the transition to low emission mobility

4.2

Specific objectives



SO1: minimising the risk of delays faced by individual TEN-T projects;

To achieve this general objective the following specific objectives (SO) have been defined:

15053/17 TRANS 525,

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15053-2017-INIT/en/pdf

The initiative is listed in the action plan attached to Communication A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility,

COM(2016) 501 final

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



SO2: increasing legal certainty for project promoters thus attracting more private

investors to transport infrastructure

The

specific objective 1

(SO1) aims at addressing the important delays encountered in the

implementation of TEN-T infrastructure projects which are confronted to a series of

difficulties as explained above.

SO1 will tackle the Problem Driver 2 (absent or unenforced time limits), Problem Driver 3

(differing public procurement procedures for cross border TEN-T core projects) and Problem

Driver 4 (coordination of delivery of for cross border TEN-T core projects).

The

specific objective 2

(SO2) aims at bringing greater clarity in the processes which project

promoters need to follow in order to implement the projects, in particular through permitting

and other administrative authorisations, public procurements and State aid control.

SO2 will tackle the Problem Driver 1 (multiple stages and authorities involved in permitting

procedures), Problem Driver 2 absent or unenforced time limits), Problem Driver 3 (differing

public procurement procedures for cross border TEN-T core projects) and Problem Driver 5

(reluctance of private investors to TEN-T core network infrastructure projects)

The initiative will in addition also provide more coherence in implementation of different EU

policies. The perceived regulatory obstacles and legal uncertainties for TEN-T projects

promoters are very often result of the diverging implementation of EU policies and diverging

national implementation of EU rules and complementing them with additional requirements.

The achievement of the specific objectives is planned without derogating to any objectives

and standards required by the EU policies but by integrating them better together for the

benefit of the TEN-T implementation. No trade-offs are expected between the various EU

policies.

The objectives are also in line with the policy of attracting private capital to the areas

traditionally reserved for public intervention as well as re-launching investment in the real

economy. The increased investment in TEN-T infrastructure is necessary to at least partly

address the backlog in the transport infrastructure investment being the result of the financial

crisis

The initiative will contribute to closing the infrastructure gap, in particular time gaps in

procedures, between different Member States and it will specifically address the cross-border

projects which are the priority in the TEN-T core network corridors.

Finally, the initiative is planned to reduce the administrative cost due to over complex

procedures and delays in permitting procedures borne by the project promoters. Since the

material rules are not planned to be changed, the compliance cost of the initiative is not

expected to be high.

"In 2008, annual investment in transport infrastructure in the EU28 was approximately € 130 billion, which was broadly

consistent with historical levels of about 1% of GDP. However, investment fell during the financial crisis and the following

period. It is therefore estimated that investment now needs to rise to €160 billion a year until 2020, as a minimum, to address

the backlog and restore investment to pre-crisis levels. " Commission non-paper with a view to the Ministerial lunch debate

taking place at the Transport Council on 1 December 2016

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14826-2016-INIT/en/pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

5 WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?

5.1

What is the baseline from which options are assessed (baseline scenario)?

Building on previous priority project reports (2012)

, the impact assessment support study

assumes that in the baseline scenario only 50% of investments would occur on schedule while

25% of the investments would be delayed due to permitting procedures by one year, 15% by

two years, and 10% by three years under a conservative approach.

An analysis of the likely pattern of delays has been made, based on the findings from previous

priority project reports (2012). A selection of 34 projects was made. Amongst these projects,

16 projects finished later than planned, delayed on average by 4.25 years. The cross-border

projects were on average delayed more than the others. Amongst the 34 projects, delays were

caused by a range of factors; technical, political, funding, and procedural. It was not possible

to isolate empirically the level or probability of delay linked to specific permitting procedures.

However, it is possible to conclude that delays are not occurring on all projects, and that the

delays attributed to permitting procedures should be lower than the total length of the delays,

as other delay factors are present. Therefore, a “conservative approach” has been chosen for

the Baseline scenario that considers an average delay of 2 years due to the permitting

procedures.

The baseline scenario builds on the updated EU Reference scenario 2016 but assumes the

delays in the implementation of the core TEN-T network investments due to the permitting

procedures.

The scheduled cumulative investment profile and the investment profile

including delays are provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3 : Cumulative investment profile

–

scheduled and with delays (baseline scenario)

In the baseline scenario, EU transport activity is expected to continue growing beyond 2015.

Freight transport activity for inland modes is projected to increase by 28% between 2015 and

2030 (51% for 2015-2050). Passenger traffic growth would be lower than for freight at 17%

Implementation of the Priority Projects, November 2012; DG MOVE based on data from Member States,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-policy/priority-

projects/doc/pp_report_nov2012.pdf

The updated EU Reference scenario 2016 assumes the completion of the core TEN-T network by 2030 and of the

comprehensive TEN-T network by 2050. A full description of the updated EU Reference scenario 2016 is provided in the

Impact Assessment accompanying the revision of the Eurovignette Directive:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0180.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

by 2030 (36% for 2015-2050). Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU

for both passenger and freight transport. Rail transport activity is projected to grow faster than

for road: passenger rail activity would go up by 33% between 2015 and 2030 (70% for 2015-

2050); rail freight activity by 39% by 2030 (75% for 2015-2050). Inland navigation (i.e.

inland waterways and national maritime) activity is projected to go up by 23% by 2030 and

43% for 2015-2050. However, delays in investments due to permitting procedures would lead

to lower activity than in the updated EU Reference scenario for both rail and inland

navigation already over 2015-2020. A description of the baseline scenario assumptions and

more detailed results are provided in Annex 4 on Analytical methods.

The administrative costs incurred by the authorities is estimated at €185 million for 2018-

2030 (expressed as present value) in the baseline scenario and for project promoters at €937

million over the same time period.

Overall, the administrative burden is projected at €1,122

million for 2018-2030, expressed as present value.

Considering the uncertainty, an alternative baseline has been used for the assessment of the

policy options where 60% of investments would occur on schedule while 20% of the

investments would be delayed due to permitting procedures by one year, 10% by two years,

and 10% by three years. The alternative baseline scenario shows higher investments taking

place in the beginning of the period. A description of the alternative baseline scenario and

more detailed results are provided in Annex 4 on Analytical methods.

The lack of predictability in the procedures is expected to continue, leaving high level of

uncertainty for projects promoters and ultimately leading to sub-optimal investment choices.

In addition, such uncertainty would not help attract more investments from private capital to

transport infrastructure projects which is an objective of the Investment Plan for Europe. This

would also limit the impact of financial schemes such as the European Fund for Strategic

Investments as well as other innovative financial instruments in the infrastructure field.

5.2

Description of the policy options

The stakeholder consultation, the expert meetings, independent research and their own

analysis have allowed the Commission services to identify different policy measures, which

served as a basis for the identification of the main policy options (in the form of policy option

packages). The following process was applied for establishing the policy options:



Step 1: Identify an extensive list of policy measures addressing the problems (considered

policy measures);



Step 2: Consider policy measures which are retained after a preliminary assessment;



Step 3: Combine the considered policy measures into policy options and identify options

which can be discarded.

The analysis led to a clear conclusions that not the same level of ambition is necessary in

every area and a stepwise approach would be appropriate.

In the case of the permit granting procedures, the situation is diverging in many Member

States and no harmonised approach has been taken at EU level yet. A higher level of

intervention is necessary to cater for a synchronisation of the procedures across the border

and allow for a concerted implementation of projects.

In the case of public procurement, a modernised framework started to apply in the last years.

However, a gap remains in the area of cross-border procurement and commonly developed

projects by two or more Member States. Here, the intervention may only target this specific

situation.

Source: Panteia, PwC, M-FIVE Impact Assessment support study (2018) (henceforth: Panteia et al). More details on the

assumptions used for the administrative burden are provided in Annex 4.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

In the case of State aid control, the newly adopted clarifications already removed a majority

of the uncertainty which hampered the development of projects in the last years. In the case of

complex project with sophisticated financial structures, it seems nevertheless necessary that

the European Commission is contacted early in the process by the competent national

authorities, making use of pre-notifications, which in turn allows complete notifications and

facilitates the State aid assessment. The prioritisation of the case, following a mutually agreed

timetable between the Member States and the Commission, may allow the swifter adoption of

the decision.

Table 2: Available policy measures

Policy measures

Description

Preliminary assessment

The option is feasible from a legal point of view, as the acts to be

changed are already in place and there is no doubt that the EU has the

competence to act in this field. From a technical point of view the option

is also feasible; however, additional analysis would be necessary to

determine which minimum requirements would need to remain

compulsory. The option would also likely foster project implementation

with more flexible approach to certain requirements causing particular

problems to project promoters.

However, the option does not seem to be possible or opportune from a

political point of view. Firstly, the EU acts most likely to be changed

have been very recently revised (for example, new or recently revised

public procurement directives) or amended (the EIA directive).

Reopening of this legislation would not be rational from the effectiveness

and efficiency point of view as well as from the political point of view

vis-à-vis the co-legislators. For these reasons, the measure has been

discarded.

The option would be very effective from the point of view of transport

stakeholders and project promoters. However, the option is not

considered legally and politically feasible as there are no sufficient legal

grounds for such an intervention into other policy objectives. Moreover,

depriving other actors (notably citizens) of the rights acquired by virtue

of other pieces of EU legislation for the benefit of project promoters does

not seem legitimate and proportionate. The measure is therefore

discarded from further analysis.

Policy Measure

1: Changing the

existing

legal

framework

This measure would envisage changing

the legal framework which is applicable

to the TEN-T projects. It would require in

particular adaptation of the EU directives

which are applicable for environmental

assessments at project level, EU public

procurement rules as well as specific

rules on State aid. The foreseen changes

would introduce simpler solutions and

less stringent requirements for TEN-T

projects. This special treatment would

derive from the fact that the TEN-T core

network projects are

per se

of specific EU

importance and relevance.

This measure would provide for a general

exemption from the application of certain

EU requirements for TEN-T core network

projects

–

modelled e.g. on the similar

rules applied for defence purposes. This

would be justified by the EU importance

of the TEN-T infrastructure overriding

other policy objectives.

This measure would leave the

responsibility and authority for delivering

the relevel permits at Member State level

with the introduction of requirements

about the organisation of the proceedings.

The procedure would be handled by a

single competent authority or ‘one-stop-

shop’, designated by each Member State,

along with integration of administrative

procedures from the point of view of the

project promoter.

This measure would define the EU

framework for authorisation as well as a

separate public procurement framework

to be applicable for TEN-T cross-border

projects by replacing the national rules.

The responsibility and the authority for

delivering authorisation for TEN-T core

network projects would be shifted to the

EU level. The procedure would be

handled by an EU authority. A possible

variant of this measure is to define the

framework at EU level but to keep its

application at national level.

This measure would define the maximum

duration for permitting procedures. This

Policy Measure

Exempting

TEN-T

core

network projects

from

the

requirements of

the EU legal

framework

Policy measure 3:

Optimisation of

the

permitting

procedures

national level

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal points of

view as the competence related to the territory remains at national level

and the EU has right to act based on the clauses in the Treaty on the

trans-European networks. The measure is considered to be effective by

addressing directly the key problem drivers. The measure has been

already applied in the TEN-E setting. The measure will be further

analysed.

Policy measure 4:

Introduction of

authorisation

procedure

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal points of

view, but as the competence is split between EU and Member States, a

detailed analysis is required to examine all possible implications. From

the technical point of view, the measure requires greater analysis, in

particular to determine the key European standards to be applied. The

proportionality of the measure is preliminarily considered to entail risks

such as the misperception by civil society, NGOs or citizens that their

rights to be heard in the context of authorisation procedures would be

limited or compromised. The measure is nevertheless considered to be

effective by addressing directly the key problem drivers. This policy

measure will therefore be further analysed.

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal points of

view with a precedent being in place in the TEN-E framework. The

Policy measure 5:

Introduction of

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

time limits for

permitting

and

other procedures

requirement would apply at national

level.

Policy measure 6:

Limiting time for

appeals in the

procedures

related to TEN-T

This measure would further develop

policy measure 5 by adding time limits to

appeal

against

the

administrative

authorisations. This may encompass also

remedies in public procurement.

Policy measure 7:

Targeted

technical

assistance

This measure would introduce technical

assistance for project promoters and

authorities involved in authorisation of

TEN-T projects.

This measure would consist of

developing a set of soft law instruments

meant to clarify and provide more

certainty on the application of existing

EU legislation. This would in particular

concern the rules related to the

environmental assessments at project

level (including purely indicative time

frames), as well as rules on public

procurement. It would also build upon the

existing support mechanisms

–

e.g.

EIAH, voluntary ex ante mechanism in

the public procurement, support/helpdesk

on the environmental assessment, etc.

This measure would consist of

introducing simplified rules for cross-

border procurement, in particular as

regards the definition of the applicable

EU public procurement rules. It may

consist of developing an EU framework

for cross-border procurement of TEN-T

projects or better targeting the rules of the

existing legal acts at EU level.

The measure would foresee the

prioritisation of the related cases,

following a mutually agreed timetable

between the Member State and the

Commission, setting out clearly the

milestones and information to be

delivered by the Member State. It would

build on existing best practices and allow

a swifter adoption of the decision after

notification.

The use of pre-notification would be

encouraged.

This measure would aim at mitigating the

inherent resistance that some stakeholders

may have to the idea of ‘European’

measure does not target the objectives of the EU policies in place but

limits itself to the organisation and efforts made and engaged resources in

case of certain limited number of projects. The measure is considered to

be effective by addressing directly the key problem drivers and will be

further analysed.

The measure is preliminarily considered feasible from the political point

of view; however, it requires further analysis from legal point of view as

the EU may not be competent to interfere in this part of the national

administrative and judicial legal frameworks. This also true in case of

remedies in the public procurement where remedies are treated by courts,

due to the national procedural autonomy. However, some proceedings

and requirements are derived from EU pieces of law, clarifying their

application as regards e.g. the statute of repose may be also assessed by

this option. The proportionality of the measure is considered appropriate

as it limits the time for appeals while safeguarding the rights of the

interested parties. It also addresses the problem drivers leading to the

legal uncertainty. Hence, it will be further analysed.

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal point of

view as this kind of support is already widely used in different policies.

From the financial point of view the measure would require analysis and

defining the resources to be used to support the mechanism. The

proportionality of the measure is considered appropriate since it

contributes to addressing problem drivers. As a consequence, it will be

further analysed.

Policy measure 8:

Guidelines and

clarification

the

existing

legislation,

targeted use of

existing

mechanisms

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal point of

view as developing the soft law as well as guiding principles is the

competence of the Commission. The effectiveness of the option is not

considered optimal as the implementation of the guidelines remains

voluntary. The measure has the potential to address part of the problem

drivers and should be further analysed.

Policy measure 9:

Simplified rules

on cross-border

procurement

Policy measure

10:

Priority

treatment of State

aid notifications

for TEN-T core

network projects

Policy measure

11: Promotional

Campaign on the

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal point of

view as the rules on the public procurement are regulated at EU level.

Difficulties may arise from the fact that level this solution would

eliminate the current flexibility given to the different Member States

through the public procurement directives. The specific problems faced

by cross-border projects would be effectively and proportionally

addressed by this measure. Further analysis is needed on the specific

content of the measure as well as the appropriate instrument in relation to

the previous policy measures. The measure will be further analysed.

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal point of

view as certain arrangements already exist. In addition, State aid control

being the exclusive prerogative of the European Commission, the

measure would not raise particular legal or institutional difficulties.

The measure would imply that the Commission commits to make its best

endeavours efforts to handle State aid cases related to TEN-T core

network projects in a speedy way while respecting all requirements of

State aid control. The Commission would foresee the priority treatment

of TEN-T core network projects, notably as regards mutually agreed

planning. This could be addressed in the context of the current

identification of best practices for the conduct of State aid control

procedures.

The measure addresses problem drivers rooted in the EU role in the

context of projects' implementation. The measure will be further

analysed.

The measure is considered feasible from the political and legal points of

view. Sources of funding would need to be defined. However, the

measure does not seem to be effective and would not adequately address

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

importance

TEN-T networks

at EU level

Policy measure

12: Increased use

of strengthened

coordination

mechanisms

foreseen in TEN-

T policy

projects. It would consist of conducting

public information and awareness raising

activities dedicated to the aim of

explaining the relevance of EU transport

networks. The campaign would target

both civil society and authorities involved

in the permitting procedures.

This measure would reinforce the

mandate of the European Coordinators

appointed by the Commission to facilitate

the implementation of the TEN-T core

network corridors. The reinforced

mandate would enable the European

Coordinator to facilitate or ensure

adequate coordination of the work of the

national authorities involved in the permit

granting or (if PM 3 is applied) the

national one-stop-shops.

the problem drivers. The measure will not be further analysed.

This option is considered feasible from the legal and political point of

view as the role of the European Coordinators is positively assessed by

the Member States and stakeholders. The option would require

reinforcing the Coordinators' secretariats placed in the European

Commission. As the measure targets seem to be addressing effectively

the problem driver related to the cross-border nature of certain projects, it

will be further analysed.

Table 3: Retained policy measures

Driver 1 Multiple stages and authorities involved in the permitting procedures

Measures

Optimisation of the permitting

procedures at national level

Description

Establishment of a one-stop-shop (OSS) at national level. The OSS would continue to

apply national permitting rules (transposed from EU directives).

Integration of various administrative procedures at national level (notably all

environmental assessments EIA, Habitat, Water, Seveso, Waste, Birds etc.. currently

optional)

–

legal requirement needed / similar to TEN-E

Introduction of an

authorisation procedure

Definition of a specific framework for the authorisation of TEN-T core network

projects to be applied at EU level. This would include integrated procedures, time

limits, cases for overriding public interest and make requirement under existing

Directives directly applicable legal requirement needed

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and better orientation of existing

instruments (such as the voluntary ex-ante assessment mechanism in the public

procurement)

Targeted technical assistance measures for TEN-T core network projects(including

high quality and efficient packaging of routine projects). The technical assistance

may be modelled on the current JASPERS or EIAH initiatives or use these initiatives

if decision is made on their extending to the new MFF.

Description

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters with purely indicative time frames

Guidelines and clarification of

the

existing

legislation,

targeted use of existing

mechanisms

Targeted technical assistance

Driver 2 - Absent or unenforced time limits

Measures

Guidelines and clarification of

the existing legislation, targeted

use of existing mechanisms

Introduction of time limits for

permitting and other procedures

Limiting time for appeals in the

procedures related to TEN-T

Measures

Simplified rules for

border procurement

cross-

Introduction of time limits for overall permitting procedures by the way of

recommendation or by legal requirement / similar to TEN-E

Introduction of time limits for legal appeals while preserving access to justice

Driver 3: Differing public procurement procedures for cross-border TEN-T projects

Description

Requirement to opt for a single legal framework for public procurement of cross-

border TEN-T core network projects (currently optional)

–

legal requirement

needed

Introduction of binding time limits for remedies while preserving access to justice

Limiting time for appeals in the

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

procedures related to TEN-T

Guidelines and clarification of

the existing legislation, targeted

use of existing mechanisms

Measures

Increased use of strengthened

coordination

mechanisms

foreseen in TEN-T policy

Measures

Targeted technical assistance

for unsuccessful tenderers

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and better orientation of existing

instruments in the public procurement area (such as the voluntary ex-ante

assessment mechanism)

Description

Reinforced mandate of the TEN-T European Coordinators to facilitate the

cooperation of national permit granting bodied

Driver 4 Coordination challenges for the delivery of cross-border projects

Driver 5: Perceived uncertainties related to State aid control procedures

Description

Technical assistance measures for TEN-T core network projects (including high

quality and efficient packaging of routine projects)

–

targeted for project

promoters, national authorities and contracting authorities

Priority treatment of TEN-T core network projects, following a mutually agreed

timetable between the Member State and the Commission, setting out clearly the

milestones and information to be delivered by the Member State.

Priority treatment of State aid

notifications for TEN-T core

network projects

5.3

Combining the policy measures into policy options

Table 4 below provides a description of the three policy options which are envisaged. They

have been defined so as to reflect an increasing level of regulatory intervention, in particular

the intervention into the national and regional legal systems and the possible adverse effects

on the other affected stakeholders than the project promoters, in particular citizens.

The policy options address all the problem drives however they entail an increasing level of

expected impacts.

The policy packages are cumulative, in the sense that some measures in policy option 1 are

also part of policy option 2, which itself includes further measures. This is valid also for

policy option 3 that adds the definition of the rules to be applied in authorisations and public

procurement. The only exception is for policy option 3b where the authorisations at EU level

would not require the OSS and national level.

It is also worth noting that some policy measures, notably those in policy option 1, involve

both non-regulatory instruments (non-binding measures) and/or regulatory instruments.

Detailed description of the policy options by the affected policy areas

Policy option 1 (PO1)

–

Minimal change to the existing instruments and development of

soft law as well as accompanying measures.

This option would consist in particular of developing a series of guidelines for TEN-T project

promoters and better orientation of existing instruments (such as planned public procurement

helpdesk, JASPERS or EIAH support) as well as of developing targeted technical assistance

measures for TEN-T projects of common interest. It would recommend indicative time frames

for overall permitting procedures.



Authorisations and permits:



Guidelines for the permit granting procedures and application of the EU acquis in

this field, including indicative time frames.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel





Systematic encouragement in soft law instruments (e.g. guidelines) to apply joint

and/or coordinated procedures under Article 2(3) of the revised EIA Directive

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and better orientation of existing

instruments (such as planned public procurement helpdesk, JASPERS or EIAH

support)

Public procurement





State aid: No change

Other



Targeted technical assistance measures for TEN-T core network projects (including

high quality and efficient packaging of routine projects).

Effective technical assistance (e.g. modelled on the JASPERS or the European

Investment Advisory Hub, or directly using these initiatives if decision is made on

their extending to the next MFF) to support project preparation and horizontal issues

affecting the implementation of TEN-T projects, both at the Member State and EU

level (systematically involving cooperation Member States

–

JASPERS (or other

initiatives of this type)

–European

Commission to develop tailor-made solutions for

individual Member States);

Reinforced mandate of the TEN-T European Coordinators to facilitate the

coordination of national permit granting bodies

Policy option 2 (PO2)

–

Limited binding action to be decentralised and implemented at

national level.

This option would foresee the legal requirement for Member States to introduce one-stop-

shop for TEN-T core network projects and ensure that the most rapid treatment legally

possible.is given to them. The key elements of this option would consist of a set of the

following measures:



Authorisations and permits:



Establishment of a mandatory one-stop-shop (OSS) at national level. The OSS would

continue to apply national permitting rules (transposed from EU directives)

Mandatory integration of various administrative procedures at national level (notably

all environmental assessments EIA, Habitat, Water, Seveso, Waste, Birds etc..

currently optional)

Introduction of time limits for overall permitting procedures

Introduction of time limits for legal appeals while preserving access to justice.

Requirement to mandatory opt for a single legal framework for public procurement

of cross-border projects (currently optional)

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and better orientation of existing

instruments (such as planned public procurement helpdesk, initiatives modelled on

the JASPERS or EIAH support, or directly using these initiatives if decision is made

on their extending to the next MFF)







Public procurement



State aid

Commission guidance document on streamlining environmental assessments conducted under Article 2(3) of the

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as

amended by Directive 2014/52/EU), (2016/C 273/01)

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



No modification of legislative nature

Priority treatment of State aid notifications for TEN-T core network projects,

following a mutually agreed timetable between the Member State and the

Commission

Targeted technical assistance measures for projects of common interest (including

high quality and efficient packaging of routine projects)

Reinforced mandate of the TEN-T European Coordinators to facilitate the

coordination of national permit granting bodies



Other



Policy option 3 (PO3)

–An

EU framework for authorisation of the TEN-T core network

projects.

This option includes elements of the Policy option 2 however instead of the mandatory one-

stop-shop and integration of administrative procedures at the national level it introduces a

specific EU framework for the authorisation of TEN-T core network projects (including

integrated procedures, time limits, cases for overriding public interest and directly applicable

requirements)and the definition of a specific (supranational) set of rules to be applied in

public procurement of cross-border projects. Policy option 3 contains two sub-options which

differ in the level of application and therefore include further measure:



PO3a: the measures regarding EU authorisation procedure with time limits are defined

at EU level but remain applied at national level, with national institutions

implementing them in practice and following the national administrative procedural

rules with possibility for appeal and access to justice based on the national

administrative procedural law;



PO3b: the measures regarding EU authorisation procedure with time limits are applied

at EU level by the Commission (or its agencies). Usual EU rules on procedures and

possibility for appeal apply with EU judicial remedies to the Court of Justice of the

European Union.

Scope of the measures:

The analysis of policy options is made on a three different categories of projects which are the

following:



All TEN-T core network projects, as identified through the TEN-T framework;



Projects identified on the Core network corridors

–

with a particular role for the European

Coordinators to identify these projects;



Projects which are pre-identified as those eligible to benefit from Union financial support

through CEF (as well as from other sources such as EFSI etc.) and which would be

reflected in Annex I to the CEF regulation.

Table 4: Definition of policy options

Policy option 1 - Minimal change to the existing instruments and development of soft law as well as

accompanying measures



Measures aimed at providing guidelines and clarification of the existing legislation (including indicative

time frames), targeted use of existing mechanisms in all of the fields identified as problem drivers

(environmental assessments, public procurement, State aid and development of alternative financing for

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



the TEN-T core network projects);

Measures aimed at introduction of time limits for permitting and other procedures

Measures aimed at targeted technical assistance;

Measures aimed at increased use of strengthened coordination mechanisms foreseen in TEN-T policy.

Policy option 2 - Limited binding action to be decentralised and implemented

at national level t

national level.



Measures aimed at optimisation of the permitting procedures at national level (one stop shop, most rapid

treatment legally possible);

Measures aimed at targeted technical assistance;

Measures aimed at introduction of time limits for permitting and other procedures;

Measures aimed at limiting time for appeals in the procedures related to TEN-T core network;

Measures aimed at requiring the national authorities to opt for a single legal framework for public

procurement of cross-border projects (law of the seat of the contracting authority);

Measures aimed at increased use of strengthened coordination mechanisms foreseen in TEN-T policy;

Measures aimed at giving priority treatment of State aid notifications for TEN-T core network projects.

Policy option 3a An EU framework for authorisation of the projects of common interest to be

applied at national level

In addition to the measures in policy option 2, this policy option intends to establish a common set of EU rules for

authorising TEN-T core network projects at national level and includes the following policy measures:



Measures aimed at introduction of an EU authorisation procedure with time limits to be applied at national

level;



Measures aimed at targeted technical assistance;



Measures aimed at limiting time for appeals in the procedures related to TEN-T core network;



Measures aimed at simplifying rules for cross-border procurement;



Measures aimed at increased use of strengthened coordination mechanisms foreseen in TEN-T policy;



Measures aimed at giving priority treatment of State aid notifications for TEN-T core network projects.

Policy package 3b An EU framework for authorisation of the projects of common interest to be

applied at EU level

In addition to the measures in policy option 2, this policy option intends to establish a common set of EU rules for

authorising TEN-T core network projects and apply them at EU level. It includes the following policy measures::



Measures aimed at introduction of an EU authorisation procedure with time limits to be applied at EU

level;



Measures aimed at targeted technical assistance;



Measures aimed at limiting time for appeals in the procedures related to TEN-T core network;



Measures aimed at simplifying rules for cross-border procurement;



Measures aimed at increased use of strengthened coordination mechanisms foreseen in TEN-T policy;



Measures aimed at giving priority treatment of State aid notifications for TEN-T core network projects.

Table 5 below links the individual policy measures with the problem drivers identified in the

problem definition and the respective policy options.

Table 5: Presentation of policy options related to mapping of measures and drivers (V: voluntary; M: mandatory)

Policy measure

Driver 1: Multiple stages and authorities involved in permitting procedures



V



P3a



P3b



Optimisation of the permitting procedures at national level

Introduction of an EU authorisation procedure applied at national level

Introduction of an EU authorisation procedure applied at EU level

Guidelines and clarification of the existing legislation, targeted use of

existing mechanisms

Targeted technical assistance

Introduction of time limits for permitting and other procedures

Limiting time for appeals in the procedures related to TEN-T

Driver 2: Absent or unenforced time limits

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Driver 3: Differing public procurement procedures for cross-border TEN-T projects

Simplified rules for cross-border procurement

Limiting time for appeals in the procedures related to TEN-T

existing mechanisms



10.

Guidelines and clarification of the existing legislation, targeted use of

Driver 4: Coordination challenges for the delivery of cross-border projects

11.

Increased use of strengthened coordination mechanisms foreseen in TEN-T

policy

Driver 5 Perceived uncertainties related to State aid control procedures

12.

Targeted technical assistance

13.

Priority treatment of State aid notifications for TEN-T core network projects



6 WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?

This section presents the economic, social and environmental impacts for the different policy

options. Impacts are assessed for infrastructure projects in the road, rail, maritime and inland

waterways projects and then compared to the baseline scenario. Each policy option has a

different level of effectiveness in terms of reducing the delays in the implementation of

investment projects (i.e. soft measures in PO1 versus limited binding action in PO2 and EU

framework for authorisation of TEN-T core network projects in PO3); this has been taken into

account in evaluating the impacts. The options have been tested for three different scopes of

application (TEN-T core network, core network corridors and CEF Annex 1 projects). More

details on the methodology used are presented in

Annex 4 on analytical methods.

The assessment of economic as well as social and environmental impacts can be considered as

a conservative one: it takes into account only the currently planned TEN-T core network

projects and not the future projects, in particular after 2030, which are not in the TEN-T plans

yet. The benefits would be larger when also considering the TEN-T comprehensive network

projects beyond 2030.

6.1

Economic impact

All three policy options generate benefits in terms of reduced delays in project

implementation relative to the baseline. They have direct impacts on investments profile over

time, users' transport costs and macro-economic impacts in terms of generated growth. The

impacts on the administrative costs for the project promoters and the permitting authorities are

also discussed in this section, followed by the impacts on the transport as a business and a

qualitative analysis of impacts on SMEs.

6.1.1

Impacts on investments

The reduced delays in project implementation have a direct impact on the cumulative

investment profile in each policy option (see Table 6). PO1 results in higher investments

already in 2020 (39% of total investments over the lifetime of the projects) as it implies

minimal change to the existing instruments and development of soft law that take less time to

implement. However, PO1 is less effective by 2025 compared to PO2 and PO3. PO2,

reflecting limited binding action to be decentralised and implemented, results in 84.2% of

total investments taking place by 2025, compared to 81.4% in the Baseline. PO3 that reflects

an EU framework for authorisation of core TEN-T projects to be applied at national level

A discount rate of 4% has been used for presenting the costs/benefits as present values.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

results in higher impact, with 85.1% of total investments taking place by 2025. The ranking of

the options in terms of impacts is similar for rail and waterborne transport (see Table 6).

Table 6: Share of total core TEN-T investments in the policy options for 2020-2025 over the lifetime of the

projects

Cumulative investments (share of total core

TEN-T network investments over the lifetime of

2020

2021

2022

2023

the projects)

Total investments

Baseline

38.7%

50.1%

60.0%

68.5%

Option 1

39.0%

50.6%

60.7%

69.3%

Option 2

38.7%

50.1%

61.6%

71.2%

Option 3

38.7%

50.1%

60.0%

73.9%

Rail transport

Baseline

36.1%

46.9%

56.1%

64.3%

Option 1

36.4%

47.4%

56.8%

65.1%

Option 2

36.1%

46.9%

57.6%

66.9%

Option 3

36.1%

46.9%

56.1%

69.5%

Waterborne transport

Baseline

40.6%

53.8%

65.8%

75.2%

Option 1

41.0%

54.5%

66.7%

76.1%

Option 2

40.6%

53.8%

67.7%

78.2%

Option 3

40.6%

53.8%

65.8%

81.1%

Source: Impact Assessment support study; waterborne transport covers inland waterways and maritime.

2024

2025

75.5%

76.4%

78.9%

80.0%

71.2%

72.0%

74.5%

75.6%

82.9%

83.8%

86.5%

87.7%

81.4%

82.1%

84.2%

85.1%

77.2%

77.9%

80.1%

81.0%

89.0%

89.7%

91.8%

92.7%

6.1.2

Impacts on tranport users' costs

All policy options for all scopes of applications show benefits in terms of reduced user costs

compared to the baseline scenario. They bring benefits to the users in terms of time savings,

increased reliability of transport and lower transport costs, and thus contribute to the increased

productivity of the sector. The TEN-T core network scope of application shows the highest

benefits, as the scope is also the largest. PO1 would generate €1.8 bn of benefits (0.1%

decrease in total user costs compared to the baseline over 2018-2030, expressed as present

value), while PO2 would result in €5.1 bn reduced user costs (0.2% decrease relative to the

baseline). PO3 shows the largest benefit (€6.6 bn) due to the higher effectiveness of a specific

EU framework for the authorisation of TEN-T core network projects in reducing the delays.

The application of the three options to the core network corridors and CEF Annex 1 projects

would bring smaller benefits as the scope of the projects is narrower than the TEN-T core

network (i.e. the core network corridors cover about 75% of the core network investments).

Even when considering the narrower scope of application (CEF Annex 1 projects), the policy

options would still result in more than €1 bn reduction of user costs relative

to the baseline

(expressed as present value over 2018-2030). The ranking of policy options in terms of

reduced user costs would be similar for all scopes of application.

Table 7: Impacts on user costs relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects (2018-2030)

Baseline*

PO1

-1,838

-0.1%

2,460,763

-1,379

-0.1%

-1,020

0.0%

PO2

-5,069

-0.2%

-3,802

-0.2%

-2,813

-0.1%

PO3a/PO3b

-6,648

-0.3%

-4,986

-0.2%

-3,690

-0.1%

Total user costs (present value in million € and % change to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Notes: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

6.1.3

Impact on economic growth

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact in terms of economic growth.

Compared to the baseline, PO3 shows the highest economic benefits generated at EU level, in

the range of €1.2 bn to €2.1 bn (1.2-2.1%)

over 2018-2030,

followed by PO2 (€0.9 bn to €1.6

bn benefits, 0.9-1.6%

increase relative to the baseline) and PO1 (€0.3 bn to €0.6 bn benefits).

The impacts are assessed through multiplier effects; they account for wider effects than only

the construction of projects, namely the indirect effects on other economic sectors and the

effects induced by increased productivity, improved conditions for international trade and

technological spill-overs. More explanations regarding the quantification of these impacts are

provided in Annex 4.

Table 8: Annual average economic benefits relative to the baseline for 2018-2030

Baseline

PO1

0.6

0.6%

0.4

0.4%

0.3

0.3%

PO2

1.6

1.6%

1.2

1.2%

0.9

0.9%

PO3a/PO3b

2.1

2.2%

1.6

1.6%

1.2

1.2%

Economic benefits (in billion € and % change to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network projects, of which:

Core network corridors projects

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: M-FIVE and Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018)

6.1.4

Impact on administrative burden

The initiative is expected to have a direct impact on the administrative costs for the permitting

authorities and for the project promoters. The administrative burden for authorities considers

both costs for the EU institutions and the Member States authorities. The inputs used for

calculating the impacts on administrative burden are provided in Annex 4. They draw on

results of the stakeholders' consultation, literature review, TEN-E impact assessment

, etc.

In PO1, the introduction of guidelines for permit granting and effective technical assistance

for project promoters is estimated to lead to savings in administrative burden for the TEN-T

project promoters in the order of €27 million over 2018-2030

relative to the baseline

(expressed as present value). However the authorities’ administrative burden is expected to

slightly increase (€9 million, 5% increase relative to the baseline) because guidelines would

need to be defined and implemented (albeit on a voluntary basis).

In PO2, the establishment of a one-stop-shop at national level

is estimated to lead to slightly

higher costs for the permitting authorities (€13 million over 2018-2030

horizon) but also for

larger benefits in terms of reduced costs for project

promoters (€166 million) over 2018-2030

horizon relative to the baseline. PO2 is in fact the option which achieves the highest reduction

in the total administrative burden (€153 million).

PO3, which includes elements of PO2 like the mandatory one-stop-shop and the integration of

administrative procedures at the national level but also a specific EU framework for the

authorisation of TEN-T core network projects, results in higher additional costs for permitting

authorities than PO1 and PO2

(€20 million

over 2018-2030 horizon) but also lower benefits

SEC (2011) 1233

Panteia et al.

This option was previously considered for the TEN-E impact assessment (SEC (2011) 1233). During that study, a large

majority of stakeholders (over 75%) stated that the one-stop-shop could bring substantial decreases in administrative burden.

The one-stop-shop solution proposed in the TEN-E was expected to generate a 25% reduction of cost for the project

promoters.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

for project promoters than PO2 (€120 million over 2018-2030

horizon relative to the

baseline).

Table 9: Impacts on administrative burden relative to the baseline scenario, over the period 2018

–

2030,

expressed as present value

Baseline (€

million)

Policy options

PO1

PO2

PO3

PO1

PO2

PO3

PO1

PO2

PO3

Difference in costs

relative to the baseline

(€ million)

-27

-166

-120

-18

-153

-100

% change in costs

relative to the baseline

-3%

-18%

-13%

11%

-2%

-14%

-9%

Promoter

937

Authority

185

Total

1,122

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018)

These calculations have also been confirmed by the results of the opinion of the stakeholders

on the planned measures. Regarding the integration of procedures under a national single

entity (OSS), the measure was supported in particular by project promoters, individuals and

industrial interest groups, i.e. those who would largely benefit from the planned measures.

However, more reserved opinions were expressed by national but mainly regional

governments, i.e. those stakeholders where administrative costs would be generated, at least

in the induction period.

Figure 4: Should a single

permitting authority (a ‘one-stop-shop’) be entrusted to apply standardised procedures to

TEN-T projects?

Source: results of the Open Public Consultation.

6.1.5

Impacts on transport as a business

The overall aim of TEN-T policy is the promotion of sustainable modes of transport and

modal shift to railways, inland waterways and short sea shipping. For passenger rail, the

reduction in delays in the implementation of the core TEN-T investment projects is estimated

to lead to 551 to 2,940 additional million passenger-kilometres (1.3% to 6.7%) in 2025 and

320 to 1,704 million passenger-kilometres (0.6% to 3.4%) in 2030 relative to the baseline.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Similarly, rail freight activity would go up by 273 to 1,458 tonne-kilometres (0.3% to 1.4%)

in 2025 and 160 to 856 tonne-kilometres (0.1% to 0.7%) in 2030 relative to the baseline.

Waterborne transport activity would also increase, by 359 to 1,916 tonne-kilometres in 2025

and 68 to 360 tonne-kilometres in 2030 relative to the baseline. PO3 shows the highest

impacts in terms of traffic shifted from road towards rail and waterborne transport.

Table 10: Traffic shifted to rail and waterborne transport in 2030 relative to the baseline (in million pkm/tkm)

Traffic shifted to rail and waterborne transport

in 2025 and 2030 (in millions pkm/tkm and %

change to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network projects - results for 2025

Passenger transport

Road

Rail

Freight transport

Road freight

Rail

Waterborne transport**

Core TEN-T network projects - results for 2030

Passenger transport

Road

Rail

Freight transport

Road freight

Rail

Waterborne transport**

273,775

224,195

49,580

680,578

182,889

118,483

379,206

204

-116

320

-136

160

0.1%

-0.1%

0.6%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

815

-463

1,278

366

-545

642

270

0.3%

-0.2%

2.6%

0.1%

-0.3%

0.5%

0.1%

1,087

-617

1,704

489

-727

856

360

0.4%

-0.3%

3.4%

0.1%

-0.4%

0.7%

0.1%

259,998

216,310

43,688

626,552

171,596

105,579

349,377

-14

-565

551

-15

-648

273

359

0.0%

-0.3%

1.3%

0.0%

-0.4%

0.3%

0.1%

-56

-2,261

2,205

-62

-2,593

1,093

1,437

0.0%

-1.0%

5.0%

0.0%

-1.5%

1.0%

0.4%

-75

-3,015

2,940

-83

-3,457

1,458

1,916

0.0%

-1.4%

6.7%

0.0%

-2.0%

1.4%

0.5%

Baseline*

PO1

PO2

PO3a/P3b

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Notes: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network;

** Waterborne transport covers inland waterways and national maritime.

6.1.6

Impact on small and medium size entreprises

The TEN-T core network projects are usually implemented by large civil contractors,

specialised in delivering pieces of large infrastructure and associated engineering structures.

This requires specific experience and competence and not many SMEs have the necessary

capacity. Cross-border procurement based on merged tendering procedures across the border

may also strengthen the position of larger companies which have more experience in working

in different Member States. The participation of SMEs is in any case very often limited by

contracting authorities, given the requirement of substantial experience and capacity.

Therefore, no direct impacts on the SME sector are expected.

However, at large construction sites SMEs are usually sub-contractors implementing simpler

works and parts of the infrastructure which do not require specific equipment or experience.

The overall impact on the civil engineering market is expected to have positive spill-over

effects on SMEs in the construction market. This impact is believed to be captured in the

analysis of the wider economic impacts on jobs and growth.

6.2

Environmental impacts

Environmental impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on CO

emissions and air quality as

well as impacts on noise emissions.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

6.1.7

emissions and air quality

The faster shift of traffic from road to more sustainable transport modes in the policy options

relative to the baseline is projected to result in lower emissions of CO

. The reductions are

presented in cumulative terms over the lifetime of the projects (2018-2030).

Table 11: Impacts on CO

emissions and costs relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects (2018-

2030)

Baseline*

PO1

-917

-0.1%

1,602,292

-688

0.0%

-509

0.0%

-68

-0.1%

85,939

-51

-0.1%

-38

0.0%

PO2

-2,686

-0.2%

-2,015

-0.1%

-1,491

-0.1%

-193

-0.2%

-144

-0.2%

-107

-0.1%

PO3a/PO3b

-3,543

-0.2%

-2,657

-0.2%

-1,966

-0.1%

-253

-0.3%

-189

-0.2%

-140

-0.2%

emissions (thousand tonnes CO

difference and % change relative to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Costs (present value in million € and % change relative to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Note: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network.

The most effective option from this perspective is PO3, where the CO

emissions reductions

for the largest scope of application (core TEN-T network) amount to 3.5 million tonnes

relative to the baseline scenario,

representing around €253 million external costs savings over

2018-2030 relative to the baseline (expressed as present value). PO2 shows somewhat lower

impacts, with 2.7 million tonnes of CO

saved relative to the baseline (equivalent to €193

million external costs savings), followed by PO1 with significantly lower impacts (0.9 million

tonnes of CO

saved, equivalent to €68 million external costs savings).

The environmental impacts of the initiative are also foreseen to result in the reduction of

emissions of air pollutants from road transport such as NOx and particulate matter (PM2.5).

The overall impacts of the policy options on the air pollution, despite being positive, are

however limited in size (€2.9 to 7.6 million external costs savings for the core

TEN-T

network scope of application).

Table 12: Impacts on external costs of air pollution relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects

(2018-2030)

Baseline*

PO1

-2.9

0.0%

49,344

-2.2

0.0%

-1.6

0.0%

PO2

-5.6

0.0%

-4.2

0.0%

-3.1

0.0%

PO3a/P3b

-7.6

0.0%

-5.7

0.0%

-4.2

0.0%

External costs of air pollution

(present value in million € and % change relative to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Note: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

6.1.8

Impact on noise emissions

All policy options are projected to lead to benefits in terms of savings in external costs of

noise relative to the baseline linked to the reduction in road traffic. PO1, in its largest scope

(core TEN-T

network), would result in about €10 million external costs savings over 2018-

2030, expressed as present value. PO2 and PO3 show somewhat higher impacts

(€27 to 35

million) relative to the baseline, equivalent to around 0.1-0.2% decrease. This outcome is

linked to the higher amount of traffic shifted away from road in PO2 and PO3 relative to PO1.

Table 13: Impacts on external costs of noise relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects (2018-2030)

Baseline*

PO1

-10.2

-0.1%

19,319

-7.6

0.0%

-5.6

0.0%

PO2

-26.9

-0.1%

-20.1

-0.1%

-14.9

-0.1%

PO3a/PO3b

-35.1

-0.2%

-26.3

-0.1%

-19.5

-0.1%

External costs of noise (present value in million € and % change relative to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Note: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network.

6.3

Social impacts

Apart from the economic and environmental impacts, the initiative is expected to generate a

number of social impacts and to affect civil society players such as local communities and

their authorities,

conservation NGOs and the individual citizens’ rights vis-à-vis

the processes

of TEN-T infrastructure planning, which are usually managed at national level.

This section presents the impacts on public participation in strategic planning, on public

participation in the planning and approval of individual projects and on public acceptance but

also on employment, health and EU cohesion, local benefits, life quality and social inclusion.

6.1.9

Impacts on public participation in strategic planning

The long term planning of transport infrastructure is usually done at highest national (or

federal) level and usually also linked to the allocation of public funds to individual projects.

This process is usually subject to public consultation based on national rules related to the

long-term strategies. Transport infrastructure development strategies are "plans

and

programmes”

in the sense of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA

Directive)

. The SEA Directive requires the consultation of the public with sufficient time

foreseen to allow the expression of opinions. None of the policy options would derogate the

rules set by SEA Directive.

PO1

has no impact on the involvement of the civil society. If a set of guidelines are prepared

to address the inefficiencies of the implementation and preparation of the projects, these will

be targeting the procedures at project level, not affecting the involvement of civil society at

strategic level.

PO2

would also have no impact on the implication of civil society in strategic planning as this

policy option integrates permitting procedures at the level of a single project (and not at the

level of plans and programmes).

The application of

PO3

would result in granting certain permits or authorisation according to

EU rules or even at EU level in the case of sub-option PO3b with reference to the TEN-T core

network. In such circumstances, the TEN-T framework would become the main strategic

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of

certain plans and programmes on the environment

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

infrastructure "plan

or programme"

in the sense of the SEA directive. A strategic

environmental assessment would then need to be conducted at EU level with the appropriate

consultation at EU level. This may lead to a greater distance with EU citizens and could entail

a negative impact on civil society and public participation. It can be assumed that

consultations run at EU level may be less accessible and less comprehensible for local

communities, despite all the efforts made by the European Commission to publicise them.

Thus the civil society could have less impact on strategic planning of transport infrastructure

that is directly affecting their everyday life.

Different approaches to communication on strategic decisions lead to blockages at project stage

–

case of

the Lyon

–

Torino link

A key challenge in many TEN-T projects is that the main project benefits are often realised at EU level, rather

than at national, regional or local levels. This needs to be communicated early in the process of preparing a

project. In case of the Lyon

–

Torino Railway, on the French side public participation took place early in the

project planning phase, leading to greater transparency and acceptance of the project by the local municipalities.

On the contrary, Italian efforts to involve the local citizens in the planning process came only in 2006, after

significant opposition from the local population in the Italian Susa Valley organised in the "‘No Tav" movement.

Participation is an ongoing process, which should start before the project decision is made for instance in the

context of a SEA and continue after the formal approval (permitting phase) of the project.

6.1.10 Impacts on public participation in the planning and approval of individual projects

and on public acceptance

The development of infrastructure projects requires detailed project designs to identify

notably the actual alignment and technical solutions. This process is usually subject to public

consultation based on national rules transposing the requirements of the Environmental

Impact Assessment Directive. On top of these requirements come consultations based on

various national rules (spatial planning, other administrative and material rules on affected

parties e.g. owners of the neighbouring pieces of land). These consultations are most

important for civil society to be heard in the process leading to the development of transport

infrastructure. All the considered policy options would have implications on these rights of

the civil society.

EU directives requiring public consultations have been transposed in a differing manner

across Member States. As explained above in section 2, national rules go sometimes beyond

what is required by EU law. Clarifying those rules as foreseen under PO1 would be neutral on

civil society's participation, as Member States can continue to apply existing rules. A positive

effect may even be seen in the cross-border context resulting from a greater alignment of

consultation procedures which ultimately increase the involvement of civil society from

across the border.

An undersea tunnel blocked at one of the ends

The Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link aims to create a direct fixed 18km long undersea link between Denmark and

Germany. In Denmark, the approval process was reasonably smooth. The EIA of the Fehmarn Belt link, after

extensive and effective consultation, was approved by the Danish parliament in the form of a Construction Act in

April 2015. Approval on the German side has been delayed. Under German law, only a German authority can

apply for project approval for motorways on German territory. Moreover, compared to Denmark, the procedure

in Germany is longer, with numerous public consultations and hearings. Public participation is equally important

in Denmark and Germany and, while both comply with the EIA Directive and the Aarhus Convention, their

processes differ. As a result, the project, ready at the Danish side, is blocked at German shore and cannot go

forward until all the procedures are completed.

PO2 is not meant to change the rules governing public involvement in the planning of

individual projects. However, the integration of procedures as well as the coordination of the

overall authorisation procedures would have an impact on public consultations. The existing

complex process of project approval involving several bodies at different stages of the

procedure would be replaced by one procedure with a single authority leading the process

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

(one stop shop authority). While there is a risk that this could affect their rights due to

changed procedures and potentially reduced time for public consultations, civil society as well

as local communities could also benefit from a clearer framework allowing their comments to

be well channelled and better addressed to the decision maker. As a trade-off for the

potentially reduced possibilities of various consultations where they can express their views,

the greater synchronisation of process and introduction of time limits could also be an

opportunity for local communities and conservation NGOs to have their voice heard due to

innovations in the procedures. For instance, the use of new technologies or the digitalisation

of public consultation can simplify and increase the outreach to the population concerned and

increase civil society impact

. As in the PO1, positive effects are expected also in the cross-

border context with better comprehension of the consultation systems in the neighbouring

Member State.

Under PO3, any attempts to simplify existing requirements notably by reducing certain steps

or possibilities of public consultation could be well accepted by national authorities and

project promoters while they would be negatively perceived by civil society, in particular by

NGOs active in the environmental area. The positive effects of a clarification of the

procedures as foreseen under PO2 would be offset by the suspicion of lowering environmental

or other standards. The risk of negative social impacts appears even greater if authorisations

are brought up to the EU level (PO3b). The decision making authority in the latter case would

be much more distant from the affected communities. Even if the fundamental rights would be

safeguarded by the careful definition of the rules, their effective enforcement would be

difficult due to technical and organisational issues.

In the public consultation it was particularly highlighted by local and regional authorities as

well as NGOs and civil society that currently the general public is not sufficiently involved in

the project planning. According to this group of stakeholders, the general public is

insufficiently involved in the whole project planning; it may be due to the scattered

procedures which are not perfectly timed or coordinated.

See in this context the Strategy for speeding up the planning process of the German Federal Ministry of Transport and

Digital Infrastructure

–

https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/innovationsforum-planungsbeschleunigung-

abschlussbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 5: According to your knowledge and experience, what may be the reason for a lack of public acceptance of

certain transport infrastructure projects?

Source: results of the Open Public Consultation.

6.1.11 Impact on employment

All policy options are expected to have positive impacts on employment. PO3 in its largest

scope of application (core TEN-T network projects) would result in around 7,500 additional

jobs per year or 2.2% increase relative to the baseline. PO2 also shows significant impacts in

terms of additional job creation relative to the baseline (5,600 additional jobs per year or 1.6%

increase relative to the baseline). PO1 and the reduced scope of application (core corridor

networks and CEF Annex 1 projects only) generate lower but still positive impacts relative to

the baseline. The impacts are assessed through multiplier effects. More explanations regarding

the quantification of these impacts are provided in Annex 4.

Table 14: Annual average impacts on employment relative to the baseline for 2018-2030

Baseline

PO1

PO2

Employment impacts (in thousand job-years and % change to the baseline)

1.7

5.6

Core TEN-T network projects, of which:

0.5%

1.6%

1.3

4.2

Core network corridors projects

344

0.4%

1.2%

1.0

3.1

CEF Annex 1 projects

0.3%

0.9%

Source: M-FIVE and Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018)

PO3a/PO3b

7.5

2.2%

5.6

1.6%

4.2

1.2%

6.1.12 Impact on public health

–

reduction of accidents

The initiative does not specifically target public health. However, it is expected to result in a

decrease of road traffic relative to the baseline and modal shift to safer modes (in particular

rail). The improvement of safety of the transport operations is also linked to the provision of

better quality infrastructure and filling the gaps in the missing infrastructure. Hence, it would

result in a reduction of the number of fatalities, serious and slight injuries relative to the

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

baseline. If infrastructure projects are implemented as planned without delays, those benefits

will be generated earlier.

The highest savings in terms of external costs of accidents are achieved in PO3 (€389

million

relative to the baseline or 0.4% decrease) when applied to the largest scope of projects, i.e. to

all the TEN-T core network projects. However, PO2 also achieves significant savings in the

external costs of accidents, in the order of

€297 million relative to the baseline over 2018-

2030 (expressed as present value). All options and all scopes of application show positive

impacts relative to the baseline.

Table 15: Impacts on external costs of accidents relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects (2018-2030)

Baseline*

PO1

-105.3

-0.1%

91,581

-79.0

-0.1%

-58.4

-0.1%

PO2

-297.0

-0.3%

-222.8

-0.2%

-164.9

-0.2%

PO3a/PO3b

-389.0

-0.4%

-291.8

-0.3%

-215.9

-0.2%

External costs of accidents (present value in million € and % change to the baseline)

Core TEN-T network, of which:

Core network corridors

CEF Annex 1 projects

Source: Panteia, Impact Assessment support study (2018); Note: * The baseline figures relate to the traffic on the core TEN-T network.

6.1.13 Impact on EU cohesion, local benefits, life quality and social inclusion

The implementation of the TEN-T network aims at strengthening EU cohesion, in particular

by enhancing accessibility and connectivity of all regions and by reducing infrastructure

quality gaps between Member States. These objectives enshrined in the TEN-T Regulation are

not questioned by stakeholders and were recently confirmed in Council conclusions

. As

explained in the baseline scenario, the timely completion of the TEN-T network is at risk

given the significant delays currently encountered by individual TEN-T projects, in particular

because of lengthy permitting procedures.

In addition, the changing patterns of mobility

–

mobility as a service, transport as public

service

–

need to be taken into consideration to assess social impacts. The effective

involvement of the local communities influences this aspect of the implementation of the

TEN-T network which is not only about long-distance flows. The network is also vital to

ensure access of the local communities to economic centres and to shape mobility in urban

areas.

Finally, transport infrastructure is an increasingly key factor of life quality for EU citizens and

for social inclusion. The timely completion of the TEN-T core network is expected to enhance

the transition to low emission mobility to reduce negative externalities of transport (as

explained in section 6.2 on environmental impacts). Good transport infrastructure is

fundamental to ensure good connections, to reduce congestion and enhance new solutions

such as digital ones to improve mobility. Mobility has a great impact on access to public

goods like health, employment, culture or social inclusion.

The social impact on EU cohesion of PO1 is rather modest in light of its limited efficiency.

No substantial changes to the currently applicable rules are expected, but best practices and

positive experiences in terms of local benefits, life quality and social inclusion could be

promoted with expected benefits in the long run.

In the conclusions adopted on 5 December 2017, the Council reiterated its strong commitment to the implementation of

the TEN-T and the necessity to continue this policy to boost investment in transport and contribute to global objectives in

particular in terms of climate action. 15425/17 TRANS 541, available at:

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-

15425-2017-INIT/en/pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

On the other hand, the impact on EU cohesion under PO2 is assessed positively, as the

measures would contribute to improving the implementation rate of the TEN-T core network.

The impact on local benefits depends on the detailed designs of individual projects and is

specifically linked of the quality of consultation procedures. A clear ownership of the

authorisation by a single entity at national level is considered a better approach to integrate

the interests of various stakeholders.

Local influence to a EUR 10billion project

In Italy, the Brenner Base Tunnel project was subject to two parallel and coordinated authorisation procedures: a

central procedure coordinated with the local one, due to the fact that Bolzano is an Autonomous Province with

its own EIA Committee. This allowed for a careful insertion of the project in the region, both from the point of

view of the required authorisations and the necessary agreements, e.g. an in-depth preventive analysis, especially

as concerns logistics, sharing of the project with the local population, consideration of local requests and

agreement on the location of construction and disposal sites

PO2 is also likely to provide greater synchronisation of procedures and cross-fertilisation of

measures at the scale of the entire infrastructure project. In the case of cross-border projects,

social benefits could be brought more coherently across the border through green or social

procurement. If a project is developed separately at every step of the permitting procedure or

separately on two sides of the border, the social aspects have less opportunity to be taken into

account in a coherent manner.

Social inclusion in a project of pan-European importance

Based on the new public procurement directives, the project promoter of the inland waterway canal linking the

Seine with the Scheldt is using social clauses in every contract for works. These clauses require a certain number

of local citizens to be employed during the execution of contracts. Procurement is an opportunity for territorial

economic development as well as to increase the public acceptance of a project. However, based on the

experience of the project promoter, it necessitates strong project management structure and strong partnership

with local stakeholders

PO3 is also expected to generate positive impact on EU cohesion by fostering TEN-T

implementation. However, the impact on local benefits appears more negative than PO2 as the

one-size-fits-all approach inherent to the definition of a single and uniformed set of rules

could be detrimental to the delivery of local benefits.

Finally, the respondents in the open public consultation in particular emphasised the fact that

focus on local benefits is one of the factors contributing to the raising public acceptance for

individual projects. This element was second only to the greater involvement of the general

public in the project preparation

6.4

Legal implications

The initiative and the possible solutions are expected to have important legal implications.

One of the elements contributing to this is the fact that the initiative relates to various existing

legal provisions stemming from different legal frameworks (local/regional, national and EU).

The three policy options will have different legal implications at different levels and in some

cases would require the introduction of new procedural rules in the national administrative

law. Therefore, careful analysis of the effectiveness, the implications for stakeholders and

civil society as well as the cost of enforcement has been carried out as part of the present

impact assessment. The reduction of legal uncertainty and the increase in private investment

is taken into account in the assumptions on reduction in delays.

Conclusions of the Workshop: Efficient permitting for TEN-T projects

–

Brussels, 17 October 2017.

Conclusions of the Workshop: Smart and effective public procurement for TEN-T cross-border projects, Brussels 15 June

2017

According to the views of stakeholders in the open public consultation, tout of 91 respondents 66 mentioned involvement

of general public at different level of project planning as a best practice. Focus on local benefits was chosen by 61 out of 91.

Extensive use of ICT was named by 43 respondents while promotion of local employment and SME's by 35.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

6.1.14 Legal feasability and effectiveness of the options

The legal implications of PO1 would be limited as it would be voluntarily applicable to the

Member States and would not require changing the existing rules. However it is important to

distinguish soft law’s lack of legally binding effect from its potential

impact in practice. Soft

law may affect policy development and practice precisely because it exercises an informal

‘soft’ influence, and can therefore sometimes be presented as a more flexible instrument in

achieving policy objectives. A possible choice of soft law measure under this option could be

recommendations, which while have no binding force might have certain legal effects and

would allow the Commission to have a coordinating role.

The requirement to establish a one-stop-shop at national level for the purpose of coordinating

and issuing development consent for TEN-T projects, foreseen under PO2, would need to be

set forth in an EU legislative instrument. This option would apply to all projects on the TEN-

T core network. This option also includes the adoption of certain limited provisions of public

procurement legislation as well as targeted technical assistance and streamlined procedures at

the EU level when applicable. A similar solution is already in force within the TEN-E

Regulation for energy infrastructure projects. As PO2 would to a large extent follow the TEN-

E precedent with the application of additional measures in the public procurement field, it is

considered feasible from the legal point of view.

From a legal perspective, the effectiveness of such a system would depend on degree of

integration of the one-stop shop (OSS) designated by a Member State. The integrative

approach to the OSS is perceived to be more effective than the coordinated approach

. This

policy option does not entail any changes to the EU legal acts that are currently in force.

As regards time limits, the PO2 would also to a large extent replicate the TEN-E precedent.

Their introduction by means of an EU regulation would not require adapting national

legislation, but the right of the Member States to set more ambitious deadlines than the ones

foreseen by the EU legislative act will be safeguarded.

The European framework envisaged under PO3 would be created for the authorisation of

TEN-T core network projects, along with the development of a framework of single rules to

be applied in public procurement of cross-border projects and for environmental assessments.

For these projects, the new framework would replace all national rules and regulations

including those deriving from EU legislation. This would entail making the requirements

currently stemming from EU directives directly applicable. This would require an EU

legislative instrument adopted to streamline regulatory and administrative procedures for

TEN-T core network projects but would also raise the issue of the appropriate legal basis if it

affects the requirements under other EU legislation.

In the case of PO 3a, the national rules on administrative proceedings would remain in place

and would not be affected. However, under PO 3b the EU would be directly in charge of

issuing permits. In such a case, this would imply the usual decision-making procedures of the

Commission to adopt individual -decisions or more likely to establish an ad hoc decision-

making system for implementing this possibly complex scheme.

In addition, it would require supplementing this piece of EU legislation with implementing

measures to govern the permitting procedures which are currently not regulated in a

sufficiently detailed manner by directives, e.g. technical standards for buildings and

structures, technical standards for environmental assessments at project level, administrative

According to the views of stakeholders in the open public consultation, the OSS should have extended decision making

power (44 in favour of this approach instead of coordination powers only what was selected by 22 respondents, 12 opted for

another solution and 11 did not express their opinion). This view was shared in particular be project promoters, industrial

groups, regional authorities and individuals. Groups which were most sceptical to this solution were national governments

and regional/local authorities.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

rules on the neighbouring pieces of land, rules on compensations related to compulsory

purchase of land, rules on communication of interested parties.

Finally, PO3 raises significant concerns in particular as regards the competence of the EU to

act in the fields of spatial planning and land use which are the sole competence of the Member

States.

As a result, from the legal perspective, PO3 in general is likely to raise serious subsidiarity

questions and, in the case of PO3b more particularly, setting up an implementing system and

an administrative capacity at EU level with the associated administrative burden would have

important implications.

6.1.15 Impact on judicial review

As it does not entail immediate legal effects, PO1 would not have any impact on the judicial

review.

PO2 would not have important effects on the judicial review either. The current national rules

would continue to apply as far as the definition of the competent court and procedural rules

are concerned. Member States would only able to introduce time limits for challenging

administrative decisions such as a statute of repose, in accordance with their own procedural

rules. Any intrusive rules cannot be proposed due to the lack of competence of the EU to

regulate the judiciary systems of Member States.

In the case of PO3a, the same considerations as for PO2 apply. However, as for the PO3b

there are several options to ensure access to justice. Transport projects involve very large

numbers of stakeholders, and decisions issued by competent authorities granting development

consent for projects face legal challenges by stakeholders. Such legal appeals are likely to

cause delays in the preparation and implementation of some TEN-T projects. Under the

current system, these legal challenges are most likely to be heard at national level. As a new

EU framework regulation would fall under EU law, the competent court would be the EU

general court.

7 HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?

7.1

Overall assessment of direct impacts

The combined measures under the three policy options have economic, social and

environmental impacts related to users' costs and external costs. The net benefits stemming

from the user costs savings and external costs savings for all three options are positive, with

the highest net benefits presented by PO3, amounting to €7.7 bn for the core TEN-T

network

projects (see Table 16). Again, the application of the three options to the narrower scope,

such as core network corridors and CEF Annex 1 projects only is expected to bring smaller

benefits, €5.8 bn in case of corridors projects for PO3 and €4.3 bn in case of CEF Annex 1

projects for PO3.

Table 16: Costs and benefits of the policy options relative to the baseline over the lifetime of the projects (2018-2030)

Net benefits (in million €, constant prices 2015)

Core TEN-T network projects

Social benefits

User costs savings

External costs savings

Air pollution

Noise

Congestion

PO1

PO2

PO3a/PO3b

1,838

273

5,069

724

202

6,648

947

263

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Net benefits (in million €, constant prices 2015)

Accidents

Climate change

Total social benefits

Administrative costs reduction

Net benefits (present value)

Core network corridors projects

Social benefits

User costs savings

External costs savings

Air pollution

Noise

Congestion

Accidents

Climate change

Total social benefits

Administrative costs reduction

Net benefits (present value)

CEF projects

Social benefits

User costs savings

External costs savings

Air pollution

Noise

Congestion

Accidents

Climate change

Total social benefits

Administrative costs reduction

Net benefits (present value)

Source: Impact Assessment support study

PO1

105

2,111

2,129

PO2

297

193

5,793

153

5,946

PO3a/PO3b

389

253

7,595

100

7,696

1,379

205

1,583

1,597

3,802

543

151

223

144

4,345

115

4,460

4,986

710

197

292

189

5,696

5,771

1,020

151

1,171

1,182

2,813

402

112

165

107

3,215

3,301

3,690

526

146

216

140

4,215

4,271

In quantitative terms and considering the direct impacts and wider economic impacts (as

shown in previous chapter in Table 7 and Table 8), PO3 clearly generates the highest positive

results.

In addition to quantitative analysis of the impacts it is particularly important for this initiative

also to assess the impacts of the proposed measures which go beyond the quantified social

benefits and include social impacts on civil society, fundamental rights of citizens affected by

the options as well as on the legal certainty. Therefore, the assessment also requires a

thorough examination of the distributive effects on various categories of affected stakeholders

and the qualitative review of the different impacts. This analysis needs to take into account

the advantages and negative effects of the policy options in light of the criteria of their

efficiency, effectiveness and coherence. This is also important as the overall aggregated

positive figures may include also negative effects on citizens and local communities directly

affected by the investments.

Eastern motorway bypass of

Łódź

This greenfield construction of a new motorway along the Baltic-Adriatic Core Network Corridor links the

existing A1 heading north towards

Gdańsk

on the Baltic Sea and A1 leading to the industrial region of Upper

Silesia. The construction of the new road did not use EU funding. It replaced the existing national road crossing

the TEN-T urban node of

Łódź

and directly affecting hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the agglomeration

with increased noise, pollution, low road safety and congestion. It affected also the seamless flows on this

strategic N-S connections going through the centre of Poland. The new road negatively affected the quality of

lives of the residents of the relatively sparsely populated suburbs; however the overall impact on the whole

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

region is positive. Moreover, a lot of effort was invested into mitigation measures such as protection from

increased noise, new trees plantations as well as engineering structures in order to reduce the impacts on the

local transport.

7.2

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the policy options must consider the extent to which these objectives are

achieved. Table 17 presents the objectives and the indicators that have been developed to

monitor the level of achievement of the objectives. The effectiveness of each policy option in

achieving the objectives is presented in Table 18, using the indicators described above.

Table 17: Linking of objectives to key indicators

General objectives

Specific objectives

Indicators



Value of user benefits linked to quicker

implementation of TEN-T

Value of non-user benefits linked to

quicker implementation of TEN-T

establishment and

development of trans-

European networks in the

area of transport as well as

promoting the

interconnection and

interoperability of national

networks

minimising the risk of delays faced by

individual TEN-T projects



increasing legal certainty for project



promoters thus attracting more private

investors to transport infrastructure

Legal effectiveness for TEN-T projects

promoters (qualitative assessment)

All options show positive results in terms of users' costs savings and external costs savings

linked to the quicker delivery of the TEN-T core network projects and its narrower scopes

(core network corridors, CEF Annex 1 projects). PO1 has a more limited impact relative to

PO2 and PO3. PO2 strongly contributes to the achievement of objectives, however not to a

lesser extent in comparison with sub-options of the PO3. PO3 reduces the risks for project

promoters to the minimum and results in the highest direct benefits, these benefits are

however not very much higher than the ones brought by the PO2. In all cases, the benefits are

the highest also when the scope of application is the broadest

–

i.e. when all projects located

at TEN-T core network would benefit from the new rules.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Table 18: Effectiveness of policy options

Key: Impacts expected

✗✗

Strongly

negative

✗

Weakly negative

PO1

PO2

PO3a

Specific objective 1: Minimising the risk of delays faced by individual TEN-T projects

User benefits

linked to

quicker

implementatio

n of TEN-T

core network

(present

value)

External costs

savings linked

to quicker

implementatio

n of TEN-T

(present

value)

PO3b

No or negligible

impact

✓

Weakly positive

✓✓

Strongly positive

PO3

Unclear

€1,838

million

✓

€

5,069 million

✓✓

€

6,648 million

✓✓

€273

million

✓

€724

million

✓✓

€

947 million

✓✓

Specific objective 2: increasing legal certainty for project promoters thus attracting more private investors to

transport infrastructure

Legal

effectiveness

for TEN-T

core network

projects

promoters

(qualitative

assessment)

The positive impact on

legal certainty would be

high as the procedures

would be integrated.

However, the contents of

the requirements

established directly at EU

level would be new to

project promoters and the

administrative procedures

as well as judicial

proceedings handled at EU

level would create new

level of uncertainty.

✗

The positive impact on

The legal certainty legal certainty would

be high as the

will increase,

however due to the procedures would be

integrated with clear

nature of the soft

ownership in the OSS

law, its

effectiveness will and the rules applied at

national (well-known)

be limited.

level

✓✓

The positive impact on

legal certainty would be

high as the procedures

would be integrated and

the rules applied by the

OSS at national level.

However, the contents

of the requirements

established directly at

EU level would be new

to project promoters.

✓

In terms of effectiveness to ensure legal certainty for TEN-T project promoters, the PO2 and

PO3a seem to be most effective as they contribute to the streamlining of procedures at

national level while keeping the common administrative procedures at national level which

are well-known for project promoters. PO3a will result in project promoters having to learn

and adjust to the new framework which could differ from what they are used to. PO1 seems to

have negligible effect as the guidelines to existing procedures would not have decisive effect

and bear the risk to be differently interpreted at different levels. Finally, PO3b may have

weakly negative effects for the certainty of the project promoters. Indeed, the rules will be

streamlined and made simpler for TEN-T projects. However the shift of responsibilities for

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

handling the procedures to the EU level will create a certain level of uncertainty in terms of

procedures as well as potential appeals which would need to be lodged to the EU courts.

Finally, experience from the application of the TEN-E rules proves that the scheme proposed

under PO2 has proven successful in the other area of TEN.

TEN-E experience

The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) confirms in the report of 2016 its previous

year’s

finding that those TEN-E Projects of Common Interest which applied for permit granting after 16 November

2013 (i.e. according to the new rules of TEN-E Regulation requiring establishment of a OSS at national level)

are in general more optimistic about the expected duration of the permit granting than those which applied

before. The average duration of the permit granting is 3.5 years and 5.5 years respectively.

Source: Consolidated Report on the progress of electricity and gas projects of Common Interest for the year 2016, ACER

2017

7.3

Efficiency

The efficiency of the options is assessed on the basis of the resources or at least cost involved

in light of the objectives of reducing the risk of delays and the increased certainty for project

promoters. All options are expected to have positive impact in terms of administrative costs

on the project promoters with PO2 having the biggest impact. Even if PO3 in both of its

configurations will have also high positive impact on promoter's administrative it is expected

to be lower than for PO2 as in the case of PO3, additional training and learning is required.

PO1 is expected to have modest positive impact.

For permitting authorities, in all options the impact will be negative due to the need of

additional training and learning. It is expected that the impact will be the highest in case of

PO3 where a significant amount of training will be needed. The lowest negative impact is

expected in case of PO1 and rather medium in case of PO2.

In all cases, the overall net impact is positive for all options, which is the highest in case of

PO2.

The objective of the implementation of the TEN-T is the transition towards low emission

mobility. The efficiency of the options was also assessed in terms of acceleration of the

benefits brought by individual projects. Regarding the external costs savings also here the

PO3 is the most efficient option, while PO1 is the least. Expected results for PO2 are

relatively high; however somewhat lower then PO3 and considerably higher than PO1.

Increasing the rights of the TEN-T projects promoters cannot be assessed only against their

interests and the overall highly aggregated benefits. Social impacts and impacts on civil

society have to be duly taken into accounts. Moreover, civil society shows greater interest to

have their say and participate in the decision making process on projects that can affect the

everyday life and the quality of life. Their participation may be hampered by lack of clarity of

rules and procedures. Recent cases show that the effective and early involvement of the civil

society as well as greater focus on local benefits is helpful and prevents conflicts and appeals

at later stage of the project implementation

The clarified rules and increased technical assistance leading to more efficient public

consultation (PO1) will have weakly positive result. PO2 is expected to contribute in general

positively to the involvement of civil society in the permitting processes by clarifying the

rules and better structuring the paths. However, the integration of consultation may potentially

have adverse effect on the length of consultations which so far may be sequenced and

http://www.acer.europa.eu/official_documents/acts_of_the_agency/publication/consolidated%20report%20on%20the%20p

rogress%20of%20electricity%20and%20gas%20projects%20of%20common%20interest%20for%20the%20year%202016.pdf

The Brenner Corridor Platform (BCP) gathering infrastructure ministries of Austria, Germany and Italy, the five regions

Bavaria, Tirol, Alto Adige, Trento, Verona, railway and highway companies and the European Commission is an example of

involvement of regions and focus on local benefits in infrastructure projects.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

concentrate subsequently on different topics. This could particularly be the case if the present

initiative would derogate to the consultation requirements stemming from the applicable

directive by replacing them with a simplified consultation. On the other hand, the introduction

of a certain parallelism or greater synchronisation of the consultations will not have such

negative effect. It will safeguard all the existing assessments and consultations while cutting

the overall needed time and ensuring greater transparency for the benefit of the citizens and

NGOs that can better understand when to have their say in the project planning.

Finally, both sub-options of the PO3 are expected to have negative results. In the case of

PO3a bringing unfamiliar new requirements will not be offset by the clearer structure and the

overall impact will be weakly negative. Whereas in the case of PO3b, the overall impact is

expected to be strongly negative due to new unfamiliar rules and the shift of handling of the

procedures to the EU level.

Finally, the legal stability is necessary for long-term TEN-T projects. Significant changes to

the way the procedures are handled and frequent changes to their contents are believed to be

counterproductive. On the other hand, the problem is clearly driven by the organisation of the

procedures and the stability in this respect will not offset the results of the suboptimal

situation. Evolutionary changes in the PO2 are believed to be best balanced in this area,

bringing greater coordination of existing processes which become clearer and more

understandable for both project promoters and the civil society.

Table 19: Efficiency of policy options

Key: Impacts expected

✗✗

Strongly

negative

✗

Weakly negative

No or negligible

impact

PO2

PO3a

Impact on

cost borne by

project

promoters

(savings)

Impact on

cost borne by

permitting

authorities

Impact on

emissions for

the TEN-T

core network

(cumulative

over 2018-

2030)

€

27 million

✓

€166

million

✓✓

€120

million

✓✓

PO3b

✓

Weakly positive

✓✓

Strongly positive

PO3

PO1

Unclear

€9

million

✗

€13

million

✗

€20

million

✗✗

-917 thousand

tonnes CO

compared to the

baseline

✓

-2,686 thousand tonnes

compared to the

baseline

✓✓

-3,543 thousand tonnes CO

compared to the baseline

✓✓

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Impact on

civil society

Structuring and

Unfamiliar rules and

integration of

Unfamiliar rules and

distant handling of

Clarification of

permitting procedures requirements are not be

procedures risk having

rules will increase

are believed to have

fully offset by the

strongly negative impact

the efficiency of

positive effects on the

positive effects of

on the civil society

public consultation

civil society to have

structuring and

involvement and will

but is subject to

their voices heard in

integration of permitting reduce the concentration

the efficiency of

the public

procedures. The

on local benefits in TEN-T

voluntary

consultations thus

perception by the civil

project planning.

application of soft

leading to cross-

society risks being

Perception by the civil

law measures.

fertilisation and greater

negative.

society will be crealy

✓

focus on local benefits.

negative.

✗

✓✓

✗✗

Evolutionary changes

without significant

Changes in the contents

modifications to the

will result in necessary

rules and their contents

adaptation of project

provide balance

promoters and may be

between the necessity

suboptimal for long-

for stability and

term planning of TEN-T

optimisation of

projects.

applicable

✗

frameworks.

✓✓

Impact on

legal

framework

stability

Stability is

ensured, however

the main problem

drivers remain not

efficiently

addresses.

✓

Drastic change in

comparison with current

situation, discutable

competence of the EU to

handle procedures having

impacts on local

communities

✗✗

7.4

Coherence

The objectives of this initiative are in line with the relevant EU policies in the field of

transport policy, the Single Market and priorities in other EU policies. All the options

contribute to the

stimulating investment and creating jobs

with the streamlining of investment

in the real economy.

A deeper and fairer internal market

will be achieved by the enhanced implementation of the

TEN-T network whose aim is to physically connect the markets of the Member States with

the clear EU added value with a focus on cross-border connection. All the Policy Options

contribute to these objectives.

In terms of coherence with the other EU policies, PO1 and PO2 align best as they follow the

existing requirements and try to best organise the implementation of the priorities of various

policies, in particular the environmental protection and the functioning of the internal market

with smart public procurement rules, with the goals of the TEN-T. Through better alignment

of these policies' objectives with the TEN-T implementation, synergies are expected to be

achieved.

In terms of coherence with the other policies, the sub-options of the PO3 are not perfectly

coherent with the objectives of public participation and access to justice stemming from the

application of the EU

acquis

in the field of environment, public procurement etc. This policy

option would entail the risk of creating derogatory rules which would then provoke a

suspicion to be more lenient on certain requirements or contribute to fragmenting the legal

framework. This could put at stake the coherence of these policy fields. In addition, the PO3b

by bringing the permitting procedures, affecting to the large extent local communities and

individual citizens, would not be fully in line with the objective of

Enhancing cooperation

between different EU justice systems and preserving the rule of law

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

7.5

Proportionality and subsidiarity

None of the options go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives. However, one

needs to note that PO3 in its both sub-options could cause proportionality and subsidiarity

concerns as it replaces the national permitting systems and, in case of PO3b, shifts the

responsibility of handling the permitting procedures entirely to the EU level.

PO2 leaves Member States the responsibility to determine their administrative set-ups while

safeguarding the necessity of the priority, timelines and efficient treatment of the projects of

EU importance, i.e. those implementing the transport networks whose impacts go beyond the

national context (similarly to networks managed at local, regional and national levels where

decisions are made at different levels). Here, while preserving the national competence and

the principle of territorial sovereignty, the EU importance of the projects is incorporated to the

permitting systems by given the most rapid treatment legally possible under the national

permitting systems to TEN-T projects.

7.6

Opinion of the stakeholders on the key policy measures discussed

Regarding the integration of procedures under a national single entity, a

“one-stop-shop”

(OSS), this solution is supported in particular by project promoters, individuals and industrial

interest groups, while more reserved opinions are expressed by national and in particular

regional authorities.

In response to the possibility of introducing time limits to the permit granting process, project

promoters, individuals, industrial interest groups and one responding NGO agree that this

process should not last longer than 2 years, and that the establishment of such time limit can

help reduce excessive delays. Local and regional authorities as well as some national

governments are however more reserved. They are also of a critical view on time limits for

the total duration of approval procedures for TEN-T projects, stating that since procedures for

large-scale and complex projects are usually very time-consuming, such limits may have the

risk of creating relative delays for small uncomplicated projects.

In terms of public procurement issues, a common set of rules at EU level applied to cross-

border projects is considered in particular by project promoters and industrial groups, as the

most effective solution to improve public procurement issues. National authorities argue that

such a set of rules would be more effective when applied to cross-border projects benefiting

from EU funding. As identified above, cross-border procurement based on a single legal

framework may also strengthen the position of larger companies which have more experience

in working in different Member States. The potentially decreased participation of SMEs in

such large procedures is believed to be offset by greater possibilities of working as

subcontractors in the increased overall construction market. This measure is not expected to

have any negative impacts on citizens directly.

As regards definition and handling of procedures at EU level, there is reluctance expressed by

some national governments, who in big numbers take strong positions against this approach.

They argue that it would not speed up the permitting process and might result in the

duplication of efforts, since only national authorities are able to verify the individual approval

requirements of each country, and therefore, some procedure would be duplicated. However,

the workshops devoted to public procurement and permit granting procedures showed some

support from project promoters to rules and procedures that would be developed at EU level

specifically for TEN-T infrastructure projects. On the other hand, the representatives of civil

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

society expressed concerns that such rules and procedures would result in reducing their

possibility to be consulted on the projects.

7.7

Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis has been performed for the baseline scenario and for the effectiveness

rates used in quantifying the policy options.

An alternative baseline scenario has been considered where 60% of investments would occur

on schedule while 20% of the investments would be delayed due to permitting procedures by

one year, 10% by two years, and 10% by three years. Consequently, the impacts of the policy

options have been assessed drawing on the alternative baseline scenario while at the same

time keeping the effectiveness rates unchanged.

In addition, a sensitivity analysis has been performed on the effectiveness rates. More

conservative levels for the effectiveness of the policy options have been assumed: 10% for

PO1, 50% for PO2 and 70% for PO3. In this case, the policy options have been quantified

drawing on the central baseline scenario.

The results of the sensitivity analysis with respect to the baseline and the effectiveness rates

are presented in terms of net benefits Figure 6. The detailed results are presented in Annex 4

on Analytical methods.

Figure 6:

Net benefits (in million €, constant prices 2015)

Source: Impact Assessment support study

Overall, the sensitivity analysis shows that the alternative baseline scenario and lower

effectiveness rates result in somewhat lower net benefits. However, the ranking of the options

in terms of net benefits does not change.

7.8

Preferred Policy Option

Based on the assessment above PO3 is the most effective in terms of wider economic impacts

and also direct user and non-user benefits. However, PO3 shows clearly negative impacts in

terms of legal stability and social impacts in terms of the involvement of civil society in the

infrastructure planning. Moreover, this options does not seem to be fully coherent with the

objectives of the other policy areas, overall objectives and general principles of the Union as

well as it does not seem proportional for the objectives it is meant to achieve.

More details on the outcomes of the open public consultations can be found in the Annex 2 as well as in to the Panteia et

al. 2018 (Report on the results of the public consultation).

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

The impacts of PO1 are much more balanced and it is proportional to the objectives it is

meant to achieve. However the overall the effectiveness and efficiency of this option is not

high.

Taking into consideration the experience of the projects in the field of the TEN-E, the

evolutionary model of PO2 which is respecting the national permitting processes but at the

same time a requires to better coordinating them, seems to be effective and the most efficient

option

PO2 therefore qualifies as the preferred option, it performs much better in terms of

effectiveness and efficiency in comparison with PO1 and is does not have the drawbacks

present in the case of application of PO3, in particular of the sub-option PO3b. It is also

proportional to the objectives it is to achieve and coherent with the other policies of the EU

and its fundamental principles. PO2 seems to achieve a balanced and efficient framework

based on an increased effectiveness of administrative procedures to foster the implementation

of TEN-T projects and, at the same time, on clearer and more inclusive processes to

strengthen public acceptance of infrastructure projects.

8 HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?

Monitoring and evaluating the legal act which will streamline the implementation of the TEN-

T should build on existing measures to monitor the implementation of the TEN-T as such. It

should therefore use to the largest possible extent the existing framework and in a simple and

transparent way to make it easily accessible for interested stakeholders. It is not the intention

to create a complex system of new performance indicators.

The monitoring of specific policy objective 1 will be measured by the general advancement of

the implementation of the TEN-T and number of TEN-T core network projects which do not

experience delays. This monitoring will be done using the existing method of monitoring the

implementation of the TEN-T provided for in article 49 (3) of the TEN-T Regulation.

Projects receiving CEF support are subject to a more detailed and regular reporting carried out

by the executive agency INEA.

In addition, the European Coordinators will be able to highlight any achievements or

difficulties occurring for infrastructure projects in their core network corridor work plans

provided for in article 47 of the TEN-T regulation and which are regularly updated.

The monitoring of specific policy objective 2 will be measured by the number of TEN-T

projects using innovative EU financial instruments as well as private capital.

Given that there are several drivers of the problems and that all cannot necessarily be

addressed by the present initiative (as explained in section 2.1

–

e.g. political and funding

issues), any positive results will not be easily attributable to the exclusive implementation of

the measures adopted. Therefore, the overall evaluation should take into consideration the

general pace of the implementation of TEN-T.

8.1

Indicators

For the main specific policy objectives, the following monitoring indicators have been identified:

There is evidence that the promoters of PCIs expect acceleration of the procedures in their individual cases. According to

the analysis of ACER, the average duration of permitting expected by PCI promoters in the pool of 96 electricity PCIs is 3.5

years. For gas, the average permit granting duration for the pool of assessed 54 PCIs was 3.2 years. Commission Staff

Working Document Accompanying the document Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No

347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest,

SWD(2017) 425 final

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/swd_accompanying_pci_list_final_2017_en.pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



Minimising the risk of delays faced by individual TEN-T projects:

The advancement of the TEN-T implementation in terms of compliance with the

standards and requirements.

Progress in investment supported by EU in the TEN-T transport infrastructure measured

by the number of CEF projects (or the projects supported by its successor) implemented

on time and/or not delayed due to permitting/procurement issues.



Increasing legal certainty for project promoters thus attracting more private investors to

transport infrastructure

The increase of number of the TEN-T infrastructure projects financed with the use of

the EU-supported financial instruments (e.g. EFSI and its successors).

8.2

Operational objectives

Based on the preferred options, the following operational objectives have been identified.

Table 20: Operational objectives

Operational objectives

Accelerate the pace of the implementation of the TEN-

Increase the effectiveness of EU funding for the

delivery of the TEN-T core network

Increased use of private and alternative financing in

the TEN-T infrastructure projects

Indicators

% of the TEN-T compliant infrastructure in railways

and inland navigation

Number of EU-funded projects encountering delays

related to permitting or procurement procedures.

Number of TEN-T infrastructure projects using EFSI

and its successor or related schemes