kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0277
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.5.2018

SWD(2018) 178 final

PART 2/2

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

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the impact

assessment report and the related initiative

Lead DG

The lead DG for this initiative is DG MOVE. This impact assessment report concerns the

initiative with Agenda planning reference PLAN/2016/210-MOVE

–

"Streamlining the

implementation of the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T)".

Foreseen adoption date: 02 May 2018

Organisation and timing

The initiative received political validation in January 2017 and the impact assessment work

started immediately afterwards. It lasted until February 2018.

The Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) was set-up with invitations sent to DG CLIMA, DG

CNECT, DG COMP, DG ECFIN, DG ENER, DG ENV, DG FISMA, DG GROW, DG

MARE, DG REGIO and SJ.

The ISSG was chaired by the DG MOVE with the close involvement of the Secretariat

General. The following DGs actively participated in the ISSG: DG COMP, DG ENER, DG

ENV, DG GROW, DG MARE, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG MARE and SJ.

Eight ISSG meetings were held on 31 May, 28 June, 14 September, 17 November and 13

December 2017 as well as 18 January 2018, 30 January and 7 February 2018.

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") was consulted on 7 March 2018.

The impact assessment was submitted to the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 14

February 2018. Following the meeting on 7 March 2018, the Board issued a positive opinion

with reservations. The Board made recommendations. Those were addressed in the revised IA

report as follows:

Main considerations

(1)

The report does not give sufficient evidence on

how public procurement and permit procedures affect

delays in construction. It does not explain how it varies

across sectors and Member States. The report lacks a

description of the lessons learnt from TEN-E, EFSI, and

action taken in Member States to streamline processes.

Modification of the IA report

Examples were presented more

prominently to illustrate the impacts

of delays in permitting granting

processes and procurement on

individual projects and how it affects

the completion of the TEN-T and the

network effects.

More reference was made to the

results of the implementation of the

TEN-E and EFSI State aid scheme.

Specific paragraphs were added to

describe the experience of Member

States and the actions taken to

streamline their processes.

All these elements strengthened the

granularity of the analysis.

The results of the open public

(2)

The report misses the stakeholder views of the

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

options, especially those of Member States and citizens.

consultations and other stakeholders'

consultation were presented in the

respective sections to a much greater

extent.

A specific section was developed in

the chapter 7 on the comparison of

policy options.

(3)

The assessment of impacts lacks a sensitivity A sensitivity analysis was developed

analysis and an explanation of the assumptions of the and presented in section 7.7 of the

calculation, in particular regarding the degree of delays that report. More detailed results are

the measures can realistically avoid.

included in Annex 4. More

explanations have been added on the

assumptions used in Annex 4.

Further considerations and adjustment requirements

(1) The report does not explain the timing of this initiative A new paragraph was added in the

sufficiently well, especially why it has to precede the introduction to present the evaluation

finalisation of the TEN-E and TEN-T evaluations. Its strategy concerning TEN-T policy,

connection to the multi-annual financial framework cycle the articulation of the various

should be clearer. The report should give the reasons for elements of this policy in the long-

not addressing the issues of permitting and public term. In particular, the IA report

procurement earlier when the TEN-T regulation was informs about the planned evaluation

adopted or later against the backdrop of first results.

of the TEN-T Regulation and its

possible revision in 2023.

(2) The description of the context needs to reference any Reference was added to the recent

recently adopted relevant legislation and its expected developments in the area of EIA,

impacts on the problem. The context sections need to public procurement and State aid. It

clarify the scope of the initiative, explaining why some was better explained why these

known TEN-T problems are out of scope and others are measures are not sufficient to meet

not.

the needs of the TEN-T projects.

(3) The report needs to give more indications on how See Main Consideration above (1)

public procurement and permit procedures affect delays in A table presenting the situation in

the construction of infrastructure. It should show which different Member States and their

provisions are the most problematic. It needs to be clear streamlining measures was inserted

how the problem varies across Member States, across in the report. More details were

sectors and between cross-border and non-cross-border added in order to demonstrate the

projects. Furthermore, the report needs to argue for each existence of the problems and the

dimension of the problem, i.e., permitting, public need for actions undertaken at EU

procurement and state aid, why the efforts done by Member level with different levels of

States to streamline processes are not sufficient. Finally, the intervention.

problem description needs to fully cover the problems with

state aid and its relevance for TEN-T as well.

As regards State aid, it was better

explained why State aid clearance is

important for the implementation of

TEN-T

projects,

the

recent

developments in this field to

improve legal certainty and the need

to build upon existing best practices

to shorten the time for State aid

clearance at EU level.

(4) The report should include the lessons learnt from efforts More developments were made to

to streamline complex procedures in TEN-E and in the better reflect the initiatives taken by

Member States as well as best practices developed Member States as well as the lessons

elsewhere, e.g., under EFSI. It needs to explain how this learnt from TEN-E experience in the

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

experience has affected the development of options for this IA report. A reference was made to

initiative.

the existing arrangements as regards

State aid control for EFSI projects.

(6) From the report, it is not immediately clear how the A

chapeau

was developed to

level of ambition differs regarding permitting, public introduce the chapter on possible

procurement and state aid. The development of

options

for measures. The different levels of

each needs to be more closely tied to the problem ambition per issues or areas was

description, the legislative context, and lessons learnt and better presented.

best practices from efforts elsewhere.

It was also made clearer that policy

options are built upon the description

of the problem drivers.

(7) The discussion of the options needs to include the views A new subsection was added in the

of the stakeholders. When stakeholders are sceptical in Chapter on comparison of options to

some cases, the report should address their concerns and present the opinion of the various

explain the mitigation measures it proposes. It is important groups of stakeholders on each

that the description of stakeholder views is neutral and proposed solution.

balanced across all stakeholder groups.

(8) Regarding the intervention logic, it seems that the low The structure was largely modified

investors' base is not a problem driver, but rather a to reflect this reservation. The lack

consequence of the problems. The objectives should of interest of private investors in

correspond to the revised problem drivers. The operational infrastructure project was presented

objectives should lend themselves to operationalisation to rather as a consequence than a

allow for measuring progress in terms of concepts like problem driver as such. Problems

complexity.

stemming from complex permit

granting

procedures,

public

procurement, delays etc are affecting

the attractiveness of those projects to

private

investors.

Remaining

uncertainties as regards State aid

control, in particular the duration of

the State aid clearance, was

highlighted as a problem driver, in

that sense.

(9) Given that the reductions in delays associated with the The IA report and its annexes were

different options derive from stakeholders' views, the report improved to describe the type of

should indicate the type of evidence collected from evidence

gathered

from

the

stakeholders and the robustness of their contribution to stakeholders.

avoid the impression that assumptions predetermined the The views of stakeholders were also

selection of outcomes. It is, in particular, important to further reflected on the various

explain how the views allow differentiating between the measures envisaged under the policy

three options. A sensitivity analysis needs to be performed options.

to verify how changes in expected time savings change the In addition, a sensitivity analysis was

ranking of options.

performed to examine the effect of

changes in the baseline and in the

effectiveness rates used in the

assessment of the policy options.

The results are included in section

7.7 of the report and in Annex 4.

(10) Streamlining complex cross-border processes might The analysis was even further

lead to some risks. Especially citizens and smaller reinforced

unintended

economic operators might have difficulties to participate in consequences. The absence of

the consultation or procurement processes, when these are impacts on the length of individual

using procedures from another Member State, which they consultation was further clarified.

are not familiar with. The report needs to discuss how and More explanations were added on

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

to what extent these risks can be mitigated.

the possible mitigation measures in

the chapter on social impacts.

The analysis of the impacts on SME

was

also

supplemented

considerations on the possible

implications of cross-border public

procurements on smaller businesses.

Data used in impact assessment and external expertise

The initiative follows up a long reflection process and responds to the political invitation to

act. In 2014, the Council of Ministers already invited the Commission to take stock of good

practices and identify ways to streamline permitting procedures for projects of common

interest of the core network

. The CBS Report presented by European Coordinators Bodewig

and Secchi as well as former Vice President H. Christophersen recommended the

simplification of administrative authorisation, permitting rules and/or regulatory procedures in

order to facilitate the implementation of the TEN-T.

In the Rotterdam Declaration

, the EU transport ministers called for the development and

implementation of improved coordinated procedures in particular in the procurement and

State aid areas, they also called on the European Commission to assess various ways to

simplify procedures for projects of common interest on the TEN-T core network.

Finally, 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 Commission sought external expertise in the economic field through a contract for a

support study with Panteia et al. The findings of the support study fed into the final impact

assessment report.

The expertise gathered by the Exploratory Study

carried out in 2015/2016 was also used to

prepare certain elements of the impact assessment report, notably in terms of problem

definition.

In the course of both studies, a wide range of stakeholders were consulted to confirm the

scope and the magnitude of the problems and to provide their views on the potential solutions

to these problems. In parallel to the external studies, the Commission services sought further

Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on Transport infrastructure and the Trans European Network,

Council Conclusions, Brussels, 3 December 2014

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

Ministerial Declaration,

Implementing the Trans-European Network (TEN-T)

TEN-T Days 2016, Rotterdam, June

2016

https://english.eu2016.nl/binaries/eu2016-en/documents/publications/2016/06/20/ministerial-declaration-on-implementing-

ten-t/ministerial-declaration-ten-t-20-06-2016-rotterdam.pdf

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

[Insert link once published].

Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T core network projects, Milieu, December 2016,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/permitting_ten-t_final_report.pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

expertise and input from stakeholders by means of dedicated meetings throughout the impact

assessment, an open public consultation

Other sources of data used included:



Action Plan - Making the best use of new financial schemes for European

transport infrastructure projects

Christophersen, Bodewig and Secchi Report

–

2015, and its

Progress Report

published in January 2018.

Individual studies for the nine Core Network Corridors, DG MOVE 2014 with

the second generation finalised in 2017

Work Plans of the 11 TEN-T European Coordinators (9 Core Network

Corridors + ERTMS and Motorways of the Sea programme)

Cost of non-

completion of the TEN-T,

Fraunhofer Institute, 2015,

Communication on

'Building the transport core network: core network

corridors and Connecting Europe Facility

Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 2014-2015,

February 2017

Delivering TEN-T, Facts & Figures,

September 2017.



https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/consultations/2017-ten-t-implementation_en

Available at their respective subpages at:

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

Available

their

respective

subpages

at:

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

COM(2013) 940 final of 7 January 2014. Among others, this Communication aims at providing

information on the potential budget and instruments available under the new policy framework and at

explaining how the Commission intends to support the creation and the functioning of the core network

corridor

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder consultation synopsis report

I. I

NTRODUCTION

This report provides a summary of the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation activities

which were carried out as part of the study to support the impact assessment.

It provides a basic analysis of the range of stakeholder groups that were engaged in those

activities and a summary of the main issues which they raised.

The objectives of the consultation activities were to:

Provide to the wide public and stakeholders an opportunity to express their views on the

importance and relevance of the problems and issues related to the current legal framework, in

order to help formulate and refine the problem definition;

Gather specialised input (data and factual information, expert views) on specific aspects of the

legislation from the enforcement community and from the industry; and

Gather input (data and/or estimates, expert views) on the expected impact and level of support

of a set of measures intended to address issues and problems identified in the current legal

framework.

The consultation activities included:



Two open public consultations organised by the Commission services;

A series of workshops in the context of the impact assessment;

Stakeholder interviews in the context of the impact assessment;

Consultation activities in the previous exploratory study along with an open public

consultation and dedicated working sessions.

Feedback mechanism

to the Inception Impact Assessment that was published in

June 2017 at the Commission's website.

The initiative related to the streamlining of implementation of the TEN-T was also

discussed at ministerial level on two occasions. It was discussed at the Regional

Transport Investment Conference on 23 and 23 March 2017 in Sofia. It was also

discussed at the Informal Transport Minister Council on 21 September 2017 in

Tallinn along with other issues related to the development and financing of the TEN-

Feedback mechanism to the Inception Impact Assessment

II. Methodology

(1)

Three pieces of feedback were received

–

from an individual, a national agency and an

association of transport infrastructure managers. All three pieces welcomed the initiative to

streamline the implementation and based on the preliminary presentation of the considered

options, supported a limited binding action to be implemented at national level as one being

effective and in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

(2)

Open public consultation (OPC)

Source:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3272163_en

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

The consultation aimed gathering the opinions of the general public and stakeholders as

regards the main problems and proposed solutions for facilitating the implementation of the

TEN-T projects.

This consultation was developed with the objective of gathering opinions from the general

public and stakeholders with regard to the main issues and proposed solutions for facilitating

the implementation of the TEN-T projects.

A total of 99 responses were received, representing 23 different EU Member States equivalent

to 94% of all contributions (

Table 1

). Only three replies came from countries outside the EU,

namely Norway and FY Republic of Macedonia, whilst three more were provided by

representatives of European, multinational or global organisations. Three questionnaires with

severely incomplete responses had to be discarded. Additional pieces of feedback were also

provided to the Commission services and were also taken into consideration in the overall

analysis. Moreover, 20 respondents identified themselves as individuals, and 79 as

organisations. As can be seen in

Table 1

, regional, local or municipal authorities (20%), project

promoters (19%) and industrial, business or sectorial associations (20%) were the

organisation categories with higher representation, closely followed by National governments

(16%).

Table 1: Breakdown of responses by Member States.

Country

Germany

Hungary

Belgium

Austria

Italy

Spain

Sweden

EU-

Members

States

Finland

Romania

France

Czech Republic

Denmark

Netherlands

Slovak Republic

Poland

Individuals

Organisations

Number of

Respondents

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Bulgaria

Portugal

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Ireland

Norway

FY Republic of Macedonia

EU, global or multi-national

Non-EU

countries

Other

Total

Table 2: Breakdown of responses by type of organisation.

Type of organizations represented

A company (other than project promoter)

A national government

A project promoter (public or private)

A regional/ local/municipal authority

An industrial interest group, business association, sectorial association

NGO, civil society, environmental group or charity

Institution governed by public law

Cross-border cooperation

Other:

Reflection group on freight transport

Public organisation for regional collaboration

Total

100%

Number of

respondents

13%

16%

20%

19%

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

When asked about which mode of transport their activities mainly focused on, 24 of

respondents said to concentrate on rail, 22 on multimodal, and 15 on road transport. A

significant 20 of respondents do not focus on any particular mode, as they represent

individuals.

Table 3: Breakdown of responses by mode of transport

Mode of transport focus

Rail

Multimodal (combined) transport

No Answer

Road

Maritime transport and ports

Inland waterways and ports

Air transport

Total

ERIES OF

ERVICES

WORKSHOPS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND DIFFERENT

OMMISSION

As part of the consultations strategy a series of dedicated workshops was organised to discuss

as widely as possible with all interested stakeholders the problems and possible solutions to

which are part of the present initiative. In order to cover horizontal aspects of the EU

legislation, these meeting were organised jointly with the respective Commission's services,

i.e. DG GROW, DG COMP and DG ENV. The workshops were addressed to the TEN-T

stakeholders, i.e. the members of the Core Network Corridors forums as well as

representatives of the Member States grouped in the TEN-T Committee, the topics discussed

were the public procurement, governance and financing of cross-border projects as well as

environmental permitting at project level and public consultations.

(3)

Workshop: Smart and effective public procurement of TEN-T cross-border projects,

Brussels, 15

June 2017

The workshop was very well attended with almost 100 participants representing different

sectors and types of organisations, including project promoters and national and regional

authorities. The workshop was organised along with the services of DG GROW who

presented their recent initiatives and the new ways to simplify the public procurement for

infrastructure projects and informed their usual stakeholders on the opportunity to take part in

the workshop.

Cross Border projects, governance and financing, Tallinn, 21 September 2017

This workshop, organised jointly with DG COMP, was held as a dedicated session being part

of the Connecting Europe Conference and was widely promoted along with the main event.

The workshop and the conference were very well attended with more than 1300 participants.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

ii)

Workshop: Efficient permitting for TEN-T projects, Brussels, 17th October

2017

This workshop was very well attended with almost 120 participants representing different

sectors and types of organisations, including project promoters and national and regional

authorities. The workshop was organised along with the services of DG ENV who presented

their recent initiatives and the new ways to simplify the environmental permitting in the

transport infrastructure sector as well as invited stakeholders from the environmental sector.

TAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Additional interviews were conducted in selected Member States, with either face to face or

telephone interviews to complement some aspects related to the study. Those interviewed

consisted of relevant staff in national administrations in France, Germany, The Netherlands,

Poland, and Italy as well as in the Directorate General for Energy in the European

Commission.

The interviews were performed between the 6 December 2017 and the 17 January 2018.

ONSULTATION ACTIVITIES IN THE

Open public consultation

PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY STUDY ALONG WITH

AND OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DEDICATED WORKING SESSIONS

As part of the exploratory study, a fully-fledged open public consultation was conducted. The

consultation was launched on 17 June 2016 and remained opened for a period of twelve

weeks, until 5 September 2016. The consultation asked for opinions on possible options to

streamline and facilitate the permitting, procurement and state aid procedures for TEN-T core

network projects, and invited respondents to comment on the impact of proposed options and

suggest any further possible options.

In total, 88 responses to the questionnaire were received, including 84 from 21 Member States

and four responses from non-EU Member States (Norway, Serbia and Switzerland). Of these,

21 were received from individuals, and 67 from organisations, consisting mainly of public

authorities (14 national governments, 20 regional, local or municipal authorities). In addition,

three organisations (one national government and two industry associations) sent written

contributions.

Table 4: Breakdown of responses by type of organisation

Type of organisation

A regional/local/municipal authority

A national government

A company (other than project developer)

A project developer (public or private)

An industrial interest group, business association, sectoral association

Other:



Port authority / Port Governance Agency

Executive agency

Number of respondents

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



Intergovernmental organisation

Public sector undertaking

Allocation Body

Bi-national society

Regulatory Body for Mobility and Transports

Responses were received from most EU Member States. The largest samples of answers are

coming from countries with large TEN-T projects (Italy, Poland, Germany and France).

Table 5: Breakdown of responses by Member States

Member States

Italy

Poland

Germany

France

Belgium

Portugal

Greece

Sweden

Netherlands

Slovenia

Spain

Bulgaria

Austria

Denmark

Czech Republic

Romania

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Slovak Republic

Hungary

Non-EU countries

Norway

Serbia

Number of respondents

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Switzerland

ii)

Discussions and meetings with stakeholders

On 27-29 January 2016, during the TEN-T European Coordinators Seminar at the EIB in

Luxembourg, a discussion was held on the problem definition. Participants included TEN-T

European Coordinators, EIB and project promoters.

On 3 March 2016, a workshop was organised with European Coordinators for TEN-T

corridors and Brussels based transport associations to discuss the challenges in the planning

and implementation of TEN-T core network projects. The stakeholders were also invited to

present good practised in this field that could feed into the analysis.

The problems with specific focus on waterborne projects were discussed at the Motorways of

the Sea Forum on 17 May 2016. Participants included national competent authorities (TEN-T

Committee members), Commission services, and wider transport stakeholders. The purpose

was to present and discuss policy options.

iii)

Final Workshop

The final workshop was a half-day meeting dedicated entirely to the presentation and

discussion of the policy options contained in this report. It was held on 7 December 2016 in

Brussels during a week of TEN-T Corridor forum meetings and participants included national

competent authorities, wider transport stakeholders and Commission services. The agenda

included presentations from a project promoter, a private investor on the regulatory and

administrative challenges that TEN-T projects face. The approach to project permitting for

cross-border network projects in the energy sector was presented by DG Energy. The options

in this report were presented by the consultant for feedback and discussion.

iv)

Interviews in the framework of the Exploratory Study

In the framework of the Exploratory study, in-depth studies were carried out by national

experts to examine 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 country studies were completed on the basis of desk research (particularly legal

analysis) and interviews with competent authorities and project promoters in the Member

States. The country studies helped to better understand the current situation in the individual

Member States and how the effects of possible solutions would be distributed. Moreover, the

case studies of individual projects also included direct interviews (particularly competent

authorities and project promoters).

ONCLUSIONS OF ALL CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

The objectives of the consultation activities have been largely achieved. All relevant

stakeholders’ groups representing all EU Member States have been

consulted and most

provided their views, together with some quantitative information, where available, related to

existing issues and the policy measures under consideration. However, even if the

consultation strategy targeted other stakeholders than the TEN-T project promoters or

authorities involved in the implementation of transport infrastructure projects (e.g. by

involving other DGs and their networks of contacts), the majority of the stakeholders

participating in the workshops represented the transport area.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

The information collected corresponded in general to the objectives and expectations of the

consultation activities defined for each stakeholder group, although in a number of cases

stakeholders.

The number of responses to some of the consultation activities was above the average of the

usual experience of DG MOVE. However, given the fact that the present initiative is going

beyond the traditional transport related topics, a greater number of respondents would better

reflect the general trends in the area.

1.1.

Summary of input from the workshops

–

There is room for facilitation the public procurement procedures for cross-

border TEN-T projects (special purpose vehicles for implementation, single

procedures, assistance, language, etc.);

If there is a legislative proposal, it will apply as of next MFF only, taking into

consideration the cycle of the co-legislators.

A stronger involvement of the European Commission is requested by the

participants, both diplomatic and participation in the structures of the joints

ventures;

A common framework for the entire duration of the project's implementation is

seen as a facilitating element

–

e.g. choice of the law of one country and apply

to the entire project;

All procedures and permits should be done in parallel, a one-stop-shop is an

interesting concept;

Stability and certainty of financing solutions is crucial for the smooth

implementation of the large cross-border infrastructure projects.

There is room for facilitation in the permitting procedures in a form of 'smart

evolution' to address the needs of key TEN-T projects, in particular in

simplifying the rules for cross-border TEN-T projects (aligning the procedures,

assistance, language rules, joint body, etc.) or integrating certain procedures to

avoid duplications;

Good quality information is a necessary pre-requisite for a smooth permitting

procedure;

Guidelines in terms of applicability of certain procedures or promotion best

practices in terms of public consultation are welcome;

Lack of available data and expertise should be addressed. This can be done via

a specific targeted technical assistance for project promoters as some projects

are very complex and not typical;

Public consultations can positively feed into the project preparation process if

they are well-timed and address the right stakeholders and communities.

Conclusions on

public procurement:

–

Conclusions on the

governance and financing:

–

Conclusions on

environmental assessments:

–

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

1.2.

1.2.1.

Summary of input from the open public consultation

Overall scoping and confirmation of the problems

The consultation has provided evidence that the main issues identified in the permitting

procedures of TEN-T

projects, relate to the steps on the strategic level of a project’s

preparation, including the attainment of spatial planning permits, planning permissions and

environmental assessments at project level.

For project promoters in particular,

public procurement

for works and obtaining final

development consent or construction permits, and

environmental assessments

at project

level, constitute key obstacles.

All stakeholder categories (9 companies, 12 national governments, 13 project promoters, 16

regional/local/municipal, all 20 industry groups and 13 individuals) generally agree that TEN-

T projects are subject to

lengthy and complicated procedures,

recognising the existence of

the identified problem. Only 5 respondents do not agree that there is a problem of this nature

(2 industry groups, a company, a project promoter and a NGO). 17 respondents (mainly 5

regional/local/municipal authorities, 5 industrial interest groups, and 3 project promoters)

recognised that cross-border projects are particularly impacted by regulatory and

administrative obstacles. However, 29 of participants from all stakeholder type stated that all

transport infrastructure projects are subject to such problems.

Figure 1:

TEN-T project are subject to complex and lengthy permitting procedures and other processes

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)

In general, 59 respondents from all category types (32 project promoters, national and

regional governments more pronouncedly, while individuals less so), mostly agreed that

permitting procedures are

not organised in an optimal way and therefore, identified there

is room for improvement.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 2: Permitting procedures are not organised in an optimal way

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)

Figure 3 Permitting procedures are organised in an optimal way, by category of stakeholders

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)

When asked to identify the biggest challenges for the procurement of cross-border projects,

60 respondents of all categories, selected the

application of different national legislations

and the difficulties on agreeing on

the applicable one,

as the foremost obstacles. Industrial

and business associations, as well as other companies, highlighted the lack of experience of

the contracting authorities and the insufficient promotion of best practices, as key challenges

as well.

A high number of respondents also agreed on the existence of difficulties and need for

improvement in the fields of

State aid

(45 respondents) and public consultation processes (80

respondents from all stakeholder type), pointing out the

lack of general understanding of

the common socio-economic benefits

from transport projects and the insufficient

involvement of the population, as main causes for the latter. Individuals, industrial

associations and other companies, also included the ineffective communication of information

by project promoters as an important factor.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

1.2.2.

Evaluation of possible solutions

The consultation found that respondents, both individuals and organisations, agree that the EU

should take action to address inefficiencies in the permitting procedure of TEN-T projects.

Figure 4: Should the EU take action to address inefficiencies in the permitting procedures in case of TEN-

T projects?

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)

–

integration of procedures under a “one-stop-shop” (OSS)

Support for the integration of procedures under a national single entity, a “one-stop-shop”

(OSS) was expressed in particular, by project promoters, individuals and industrial interest

groups. More reserved opinions were expressed by national and regional governments. This

was also confirmed by the bilateral interviews.

A significant portion of national and regional governments altogether are reluctant towards

this solution. However, the individual qualitative analysis of their comments shows that this

apparent disagreement stems, in some cases, from the fact that some countries have already

implemented integrated procedures with a single entity (including fast track procedures). The

existence of a single entity that manages the permitting process of such projects can be seen

as a best practice example of “one-stop-shop” implementation.

In general, national governments believe that the integration of various administrative

procedures for permit granting at national level

–

combined with time limits (see below) - are

the most effective measures to reduce delays, speed up the process and give legal certainty. In

their view, it creates a more attractive environment for private investors in the long-term.

Some national governments have expressed reservations with regard to the set-up of national

“one-stop-shops”. They consider that, although

this entity would be beneficial if implemented

properly and would effectively speed up the process, it might also lead to additional

administrative burden and organisational problems. The authority that would be appointed to

act as OSS might not have all the competences and it might take several years before it

becomes effective. They have pointed out the importance of defining a clear and specific role

for such an entity and to avoid conflicts when a one stop shop is already in place.

According to

project promoters and individuals

the OSS should have extended decision-

making capacity that would manage all environmental assessments at project level, spatial

planning permissions and construction permits. On the other hand, the opinions of

national

and regional governments

varied as to the extent of the integration of procedures and level

of authority. A significant number of national representatives stated that such entities should

have coordinating powers only.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



Introduction of time limits

Respondents

–

primarily

project promoters, individuals and industrial interest groups

agreed that the permitting process should not last longer than 2 years, and that the

establishment of such time limit could help reduce excessive delays.

Local and regional

authorities as well as some national government

were more reserved. They have provided

critical views 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 would have the risk of creating relative delays for small

uncomplicated projects. In the context of bilateral interviews, some national governments also

highlighted that the delays are often caused by investors themselves, for which time limits

would have less effect.



Public acceptance and technical assistance

High levels of involvement of the general public throughout the whole project duration and

effective communication of the common benefits it brings to society, were the preferred

measures to overcome issues related to low public acceptance.

All respondents

from all stakeholders’ type in general (see figure 33 from the online public

consultation report in annex), and organisations more so than individuals, identified a need for

technical assistance primarily in the fields of environmental assessments, financing structure

development, including the designing of Public-Private Partnerships, and public procurement

procedures.



Common set of rules at EU level

A common set of rules at EU level applied to cross-border projects was identified, in

particular by

project promoters and industrial groups,

as the most effective solution to

improve public procurement issues.

National authorities

stated that such a set of rules would

be more effective when applied to cross-border projects benefiting from EU funding.

At EU level, respondents agreed that environmental assessments (24 respondents, from which

5 project promoters. 5 industry groups, 4 national governments, 4 individuals and others),

funding decisions (21 respondents,) and state aid clearance (20 respondents, from which 4

national governments, 2 project promoters, 2 companies, 3 regional governments and 4

industrial groups, 3 individuals) should be handled under a single procedure. They also affirm

that such a simplified framework would have the highest positive impact for projects from the

TEN-T Core Network.

However, there is reluctance amongst some

national governments, regional and local

authorities,

who have taken strong positions against the definition and handling of the

procedures at European level. They have argued that it would not speed up the permitting

process and could result in the duplication of efforts, since only national authorities could

verify the individual approval requirements of each country, and therefore, some procedure

would be duplicated.



Possible legal instrument

Amongst the available instruments for adopting measures to facilitate the permitting and

preparation of TEN-T projects, the consultation showed a preference from respondents in

general for the implementation of an EU Regulation on the permitting procedures and other

elements of preparation of priority status TEN-T projects, which would be directly applicable

in Member States.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Nevertheless, some

national governments

have provided different opinions in relation to the

considered instruments. They showed hesitation towards the implementation of an EU

Directive or a Regulation, and recommended caution, mentioning that these actions could

endanger the stability of European legislation in the respective areas. These views were

expressed in the course of the bilateral interviews with some national administrations. Some

national administrations consider that it would impact directly the approval procedure of

TEN-T projects, arguing that such measure would conflict with ongoing procedures at

national level, and may even generate further delays. They warned against any new processes

that would be established in addition to the existing ones, in particular when a one stop shop

already exists in the country.

A variety of stakeholders, and in particular from

national and local authorities

support the

value and significance of knowledge transfer, the guidance that such instructions can provide,

and the importance of promotion and dissemination of best practices. It is nevertheless

important to note that the development of non-binding EU guidelines for permitting

procedures was evaluated as less effective than binding rules. When deepening the analysis

through bilateral interviews, some national governments considered that soft law instruments

would leave them greater room to implement the measures in the most effective way

according to their specific needs. Other national governments on the other hand doubt their

effectiveness.

1.3.

Additional results from direct interviews with Member States' authorities

Opinions vary regarding

soft law:

some agree that soft law instruments will leave the

necessary room for MS to implement the measures in the most effective way, according to the

specific needs of each State, only others doubt their effectiveness.

In any case, they all support the development for best practice dissemination and knowledge

exchange amongst MS, which can improve their national frameworks by learning from

successful cases. They defended the value of developing guidelines and establishing standard

procurement procedures.

Member States believe that the

integration of various administrative procedures

at national

level and introduction of time limits for the permitting procedures are the most effective

measures to reduce delays, speed up the process and give legal certainty, and thereby,

generate attractiveness of private actors in the long-term. A couple of MS showed hesitancy

towards the establishment of time limits for permitting procedures, since delays are often

caused by the investors.

With regards to the proposal to set up a “one-stop shop” and to integrate authorisation

procedures, some MS already have this integration and fast track for some projects. The

existence of a single entity that manages the permitting process of such projects can be seen

as a best practice example of “one-stop-shop” implementation.

They have expressed doubts with regards to the set-up

of national “one-stop-shops”. They

reflect that, although this entity would be beneficial if implemented in an ideal manner and

would effectively speed up the process, it might also result in the creation of additional

bureaucracy and lead to organisational problems. The authority that would be appointed to act

as OSS might not have all the competences and it might take several years before it becomes

effective. They have pointed out the importance of defining a clear and specific role for such

an entity.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Some Member States expressed their reluctance towards the establishment of new European

Directives or Regulations that would directly determine the content of the approval procedure

of TEN-T projects, arguing that such measure would conflict with ongoing procedures at

national level, and therefore, generate further delays.

In general, Member States agree with measures to

improve, clarify and simplify procedures

as they believe it is above all essential to stabilise the legal framework.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 3: Who is affected by the initiative and how

Stakeholders affected by the current situation

The following stakeholders have been identified as the main groups of stakeholders affected

by the existing problems, as described in Chapter 2 of the main report (problem definition).

All main groups of stakeholders recognise that permitting procedures for TEN-T projects are

not organised in an optimal way.

Figure 5: Permitting procedures are organised in an optimal way, by category of stakeholders

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)



Promoters of transport infrastructure projects

All project promoters of TEN-T projects are confronted to permitting procedures and other

procedures such as public procurement and State aid clearance in order to implement and

realise their transport infrastructure project.

In particular, this concerns the infrastructure managers of the TEN-T networks (rail, road,

ports, inland waterways). This group of affected stakeholders also includes entities which are

set up only for the purpose of implementation of a project, such as special project companies

and joint ventures in case of cross-border projects.

Project promoters are mostly affected by the complexity of the procedures resulting in delays

and legal uncertainties creating additional costs for them. They tend to agree that many of the

stages described in the above authorisation framework pose problems in terms of project

preparation. The project promoters who participated in the open public consultation (16

contributions) were asked to identify the steps that most lengthen procedures and create

administrative burden for them. They mentioned, in the following order, public procurement

works, environmental assessments at project level and construction permits as the most

cumbersome stages in their response

See also Figure 1 in Annex 3

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 6: Steps affecting the most the length and create administrative burden from the point

of view of project promoters

Source: Open Public Consultation (2017)



Public administrations at local, regional or national level

Another group of affected stakeholders is composed of local, regional and national authorities

which often are responsible both for the promotion of projects

–

since most of the TEN-T

infrastructure is owned by the State or subnational public entities

–

and for the issuance of

specific permits and carrying out the procedures required by law.

Thus, the impact on the public administrations is twofold and results in varying views on the

problem and on possible solutions. This was evidenced at the occasion of the targeted

workshop

dedicated to efficient permitting for TEN-T projects which gathered

representatives of national authorities dealing with permitting processes, but also national

authorities directly involved in the development of infrastructure projects, notably cross-

border projects.



Civil society

The initiative affects also citizens in various ways. Permitting procedures are designed to

preserve certain citizens' rights, for instance the property right, the quality of their

environment or the protection against several nuisances. For this reason, one important

element of the authorisation procedures concerns the stakeholders' consultation and the

possibility for citizens

–

often represented by local groups or NGOs

–

to make their voice

heard.

In recent years, the mobilisation of citizens in the context of the development of infrastructure

projects has significantly increased. Local communities may sometimes oppose the

construction of projects with largely positive impacts

–

economic or environmental

–

that

have an effect elsewhere (larger city, port etc.). This opposition by local residents is linked to

the fact that these new constructions or upgrades are close to their homes or imply nuisances

or other negative effects to their immediate living environment. Projects often do not take into

consideration the local context and impacts, as the regions, NGOs or communes are not

effectively involved in the project planning and the administrative proceedings are too

complex and difficult to understand. In addition, the mobilisation of local residents opposing

infrastructure projects can be compounded by groups of activists which may employ more

See Annex 2 Stakeholders consultations

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

radical means to block the implementation of projects.

On the other hand, citizens cannot take advantage from the effective and on-time delivery of

infrastructure projects and of the related benefits when the projects are delayed. They are

likely to also support cost overruns one way or the other

–

be it as user of the infrastructure or

as taxpayers when the projects are publicly developed. The over-complexity of procedures or

the lack of coordination and predictability is likely to discourage the most concerned citizens

(landowners, local inhabitants, local NGOs) from taking part in the consultations. The

permitting procedures may also prove inefficient if the input from civil society is not taken

into account at the right time, which calls for carefully designed and understandable

procedures.

In order not to limit the fundamental rights of these stakeholders, the measures will have to be

carefully design in order not to create an imbalance between various group of stakeholders,

and in particular, not to be to the detriment of citizens and civil society.

Stakeholders affected in case of adoption of the preferred option

The preferred policy option is policy option 2, which includes legal requirement for Member

States to introduce one-stop shop and integration of procedures for TEN-T core network

projects and ensure that the most rapid treatment legally possible is given to them. Auxiliary

measures concern application shorter deadlines for State aid clearance as well as dedicated

technical assistance.

National authorities, including permitting bodies, project promoters and civil society are the

most affected stakeholders.

National authorities

The national authorities would be affected by the need of designating or establishing a body

whose objective would be to integrate or coordinate the permitting processes related to the

TEN-T core network projects. It would lead to more efforts for integrating and coordinating

existing procedures following a stock-taking exercise to identify the fast ones and the most

relevant actors. Depending on the administrative organisation of the Member States this

would require administrative measures to entrust the relevant bodies with a clear allocation of

tasks and responsibility for making the necessary decisions. This will also provide additional

support and impetus to initiatives developed at national level with the same objective. It will

require a screening of the current procedures related to the permitting processes and the most

rapid procedures available. Some lessons may also be drawn by national authorities from their

own experience with the TEN-E permit granting schemes and certain scheme may even be

simply extended to transport. While the preferred option would necessarily entail some

administrative costs (even though more limited than for the permitting authorities), the

additional workload and cost borne at national authorities are expected to decrease overtime.

As part of the national authorities, the permitting bodies are expected to be directly impacted

policy option 2. The workload in terms of the necessary reorganisation of the working

patterns and introduction of coordination or procedures currently running completely

independently is expected not to be negligible in a ramp-up phase. The introduction of time

limits for overall permitting procedures will result in an increased intensity of work. The

administrative cost for this type of stakeholders in terms of NPV is expected to grow by 5%.

However, the impact assessment shows that it will decrease overtime.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Project promoters

Project promoters are expected to be positively impacted by the preferred policy option. The

measures covered by the initiative would lead to a significant simplification of the permit

granting process. It would lead to a reduction in time and avoid long delays encountered in

certain cases. The time limit will provide them with a clear indication of the overall duration

of the permit granting process, increasing clarity and predictability of the implementation.

Ultimately, this simplification and greater clarity will also facilitate their relations with

investors, in particular private ones which would be more keen to support transport

infrastructure projects. More specifically, promoters of cross border projects would also enjoy

a facilitated framework for public procurement, as national authorities would necessarily need

to opt for single rules. On the other hand, it should not be omitted that project promoters

would also need to adapt to the new streamlined measures. However, this adaptation time is

expected to be relatively short. Overall, the net present value of the change in the

administrative cost borne by project promoters is expected to decrease by 13% compared to

the baseline, which is far from being insignificant for TEN-T projects. It means important

savings in external spend (law firms, engineering companies, financial experts etc.)

The impact of the changes in legal framework, which stability is very important for long-term

projects, is not expected to be negative. The changes introduced by the PO2 focus on the

organisation of procedures and not on the requirements and contents of the documentation

necessary for obtaining authorisations, thereby reducing the risk of significant compliance

costs

Civil society

The integration of procedures as well as the coordination of the overall authorisation

procedures foreseen under policy option 2 is expected to have a positive impact on public

consultations and thus on the involvement of civil society. The existing complex process of

project approval involving several bodies at different stages of the procedure - which is

largely considered unsatisfactory by civil society organisations - will be improved to ensure

that one procedure is applied with a single authority leading the process (one stop shop

authority).

Any misperceptions that the measures would affect citizens' rights to be beard and involved in

the process due to changed procedures will be avoided, notably by designing a clearer and

more inclusive process. The initiative will not reduce the time for public consultations as it

would not affect the requirements set in each procedure but it will require greater coordination

between them. Civil society and in particular local communities will also benefit from a

clearer framework allowing their comments to be well channelled and better addressed to the

decision maker. The greater synchronisation of process and introduction of time limits will

also be an opportunity for local communities and conservation NGOs to have their voice

heard due to innovations in the procedures.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 7: Reasons for a lack of public acceptance of certain transport infrastructure projects

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Summary of costs and benefits of the preferred option

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions)

–

Policy Option 2

–

2018-2030

Description

Amount

Direct benefits

User cost reductions for the -

€5.1bn (-0.2%

compared to baseline)

TEN-T core network

Benefits include time savings, increased

reliability of transport and lower transport

costs for infrastructure users.

Comments

Traffic shifted to

rail transport in 2030

+ 2.6% for passenger transport and + 0.5% for

freight transport compared to baseline

Traffic shifted to waterborne + 0.1% compared to baseline

transport in 2030

Environmental benefits of CO

emissions: - 2.7 million tonnes (- 0.2%)

the TEN-T core network compared to baseline

projects:

Since the initiative aims at

reducing delays, the positive

impacts

the

implementation of the TEN-

T projects on environment

and

climate

will

generated earlier.

Social benefits:



External costs of air pollution: -

€5.6 million

compared to baseline

External costs of noise: -

€26.9 million compared

to baseline

External costs of accidents: -

€297 million (-

The integration of procedures as well as the

0.2%) compared to baseline for TEN-T core coordination of the overall authorisation

Participation

network

procedures

would

simplify

public

Cohesion

consultations. Civil society as well as local

Safety/public health

communities could also benefit from a

clearer framework allowing their comments

to be well channelled and better addressed to

the decision maker.

The initiative is expected to result in modal

shift to safer and cleaner modes (in

particular rail) and to decrease road traffic,

hence it is expected to be positive in terms

of public health.

An improved implementation of TEN-T

projects would positively contribute to

cohesion.

Indirect benefits

Positive impact on GDP of +1.6% compared to the baseline

the implementation of the

TEN-T

core

network

projects

This captures the indirect effects on

economic sectors other than transport and

the

effects

induced

increased

productivity, improved conditions for

international trade and technological spill-

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

overs.

Employment impacts of 5 600 job-years (+1.6% compared to the

implementing the TEN-T baseline)

core network projects

II. Overview of costs

–

Policy Option 2

Promoters

Baseline

Total administrative costs

in € million (2018-2030)

Policy Option 2

Administrations

Baseline

Policy Option 2

Combined impact

Policy Option 2

937

-166 (-18%)

185

+13 (+7%)

-153 (-14%)

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 4: Analytical methods

1.4.

Description of analytical models used

A model suite has been used for the analytical work: PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model,

the NEAC transport network model and an Excel-based tool developed by Panteia/NEA in the

context of the Impact Assessment support study

13 14

While PRIMES-TREMOVE is a

transport model covering the entire transport system, used for the development of the EU

Reference scenario 2016, the NEAC model and the Excel-based tool developed in the context

of the Impact Assessment support study focus specifically on the implementation of the TEN-

T investment plans. A brief description of each model is provided below, followed by an

explanation of each model’s role in the context of this impact assessment.

Section 4.2 presents the assumptions and results of the baseline scenario. Section 4.3 provides

other assumptions used for evaluating the impacts of policy options while section 4.4 presents

the assumptions used for calculating the administrative burden.

1.4.1.

PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model

The PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model projects the evolution of demand for passengers

and freight transport by transport mode and transport mean. It is essentially a dynamic system

of multi-agent choices under several constraints, which are not necessarily binding

simultaneously. The model consists of two main modules, the transport demand allocation

module and the technology choice and equipment operation module. The two modules

interact with each other and are solved simultaneously.

The projections include details for a large number of transport means, technologies and fuels,

including conventional and alternative types, and their penetration in various transport market

segments for each EU Member State. They also include details about greenhouse gas and air

pollution emissions (e.g. NOx, PM, SOx, CO), as well as impacts on external costs of

congestion, noise and accidents.

In the transport field, PRIMES-TREMOVE is suitable for modelling

soft measures

(e.g. eco-

driving, deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems, labelling),

economic measures

(e.g.

subsidies and taxes on fuels, vehicles, emissions; ETS for transport when linked with

PRIMES; pricing of congestion and other externalities such as air pollution, accidents and

noise; measures supporting R&D),

regulatory measures

(e.g. CO

emission performance

standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles; EURO standards on

road transport vehicles; technology standards for non-road transport technologies),

infrastructure policies for alternative fuels

(e.g. deployment of refuelling/recharging

infrastructure for electricity, hydrogen, LNG, CNG). Used as a module which contributes to a

broader PRIMES scenario, it can show how policies and trends in the field of transport

contribute to economy wide trends in energy use and emissions. Using data disaggregated per

Member State, it can show differentiated trends across Member States.

PRIMES-TREMOVE has been used for the 2011 White Paper on Transport, Low Carbon

Economy and Energy 2050 Roadmaps, the 2030 policy framework for climate and energy and

more recently for the Effort Sharing Regulation, the review of the Energy Efficiency

Directive, the recast of the Renewables Energy Directive, the European strategy on low-

emission mobility, the revision of the Eurovignette Directive and the recast of the Regulations

on CO

standards for light duty vehicles.

Link to the IA support study once published.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

The PRIMES-TREMOVE is a private model that has been developed and is maintained by

E3MLab/ICCS of National Technical University of Athens

based on, but extending features

of the open source TREMOVE model developed by the TREMOVE

modelling community.

Part of the model (e.g. the utility nested tree) was built following the TREMOVE model

Other parts, like the component on fuel consumption and emissions, follow the COPERT

model.

As module of the PRIMES energy system model, PRIMES-TREMOVE

has been

successfully peer reviewed

, most recently in 2011

1.4.2.

NEAC model

NEAC is a network-based transport model, where the supply side of the transport sector is

represented as a set of network structures connecting the trading regions in the model. The

system covers all of Europe and neighbouring countries and provides the link between traffic

and economic development across European regions.

The basic units within the system are NUTS3 regions. The model covers the road, rail and

waterborne transport. Goods are traded between regions depending on their socio-economic

needs and routed from origin to destination via the transport network. The volumes being

traded, and the route/mode choices used determine the system’s cost, measured as user

(internal) and non-user (external) cost. Through a combination of exogenous and endogenous

effects, the system can be modelled over time to produce projections. Levels of economic

development are linked to their levels of trade. Ports have a special role within the system as

the primary gateways for intercontinental traffic. Sea transport is included within the

multimodal network structures in NEAC.

NEAC model is particularly suitable for modelling transport infrastructure policies, port

competition and containerisation.

NEAC is a private model, developed and maintained by Panteia/NEA

. It has been used for

the 2014 TEN-T Corridor studies and more recently in the context of the 2017 TEN-T

Corridor work plans

1.4.3.

Panteia/NEA model

An Excel-based tool was additionally developed by Panteia/NEA to assess the impacts of

delays in the implementation of core TEN-T network investments (i.e. the baseline scenario)

and of measures related to the streamlining of TEN-T implementation. The tool covers EU28

Source: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab

Source:

http://www.tmleuven.be/methode/tremove/home.htm

Several model enhancements were made compared to the standard TREMOVE model, as for example: for the

number of vintages (allowing representation of the choice of second-hand cars); for the technology categories which include

vehicle types using electricity from the grid and fuel cells. The model also incorporates additional fuel types, such as biofuels

(when they differ from standard fossil fuel technologies), LPG and LNG. In addition, representation of infrastructure for

refuelling and recharging are among the model refinements, influencing fuel choices. A major model enhancement concerns

the inclusion of heterogeneity in the distance of stylised trips; the model considers that the trip distances follow a distribution

function with different distances and frequencies. The inclusion of heterogeneity was found to be of significant influence in

the choice of vehicle-fuels especially for vehicles-fuels with range limitations.

The model can be run either as a stand-alone tool (e.g. for the 2011 White Paper on Transport and for the 2016

Strategy on low-emission mobility) or fully integrated in the rest of the PRIMES energy systems model (e.g. for the Low

Carbon Economy and Energy 2050 Roadmaps, for the 2030 policy framework for climate and energy, for the Effort Sharing

Regulation, for the review of the Energy Efficiency Directive and for the recast of the Renewables Energy Directive). When

coupled with PRIMES, interaction with the energy sector is taken into account in an iterative way.

Source:

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/analysis/models/docs/primes_model_2013-2014_en.pdf.

Source:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_1569_2.pdf

Source: https://www.panteia.com/themes/transport-mobility/transport-models/

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

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

and draws on input from: the updated EU Reference scenario 2016, the NEAC model, the

TEN-T

core network investment projects and the results of stakeholders’ consultation

on the

effectiveness of options to reduce delays in the implementation of core TEN-T network

investments.

The approach to quantify impacts on social benefits includes several calculation steps:

–

Estimation of the effects of measures on the investments profile by transport mode;

Estimation of the effect of the investments profile on transport activity by transport

mode;

Estimation of the impacts on total transport user costs;

Estimation of the impacts on CO

emissions and air pollution emissions, and

calculation of the external costs of air pollution, noise, congestion, accidents and

climate change.

The impacts of measures related to the streamlining of TEN-T implementation on the

investments profile draws on the results of stakeholders consultation. The inputs used are

provided in section 4.2 and further explained in the Impact Assessment support study.

In a second step, the impacts of investment profiles on transport activity by mode are derived

drawing on the NEAC model. The total user costs are calculated by applying the average unit

costs to the transport activity by mode. CO

emissions and air pollution emissions by transport

mode are calculated by applying the emission factors per passenger-kilometre and tonne-

kilometre from the updated EU Reference scenario 2016 to the transport activity by mode.

External costs are derived in a similar way, drawing on the input from the updated EU

Reference scenario 2016 and the 2014 Handbook on the external costs of transport

. A

discount rate of 4% is used for deriving the present value of social benefits accruing over

time.

In addition, GDP and employment effects have been estimated based on multipliers applied to

the investment profiles by policy option. To capture the total scope of economic effects of the

interventions it is necessary to measure the wider economic impacts, which is only possible

by a fully-fledged macro-economic model. Such a macro-economic approach has been

followed with the application of the ASTRA model in the study on Cost of non-completion of

the TEN-T

, which has estimated the full growth and jobs impacts of not implementing the

TEN-T by 2030 (i.e. the study modelled the whole sequence of direct effects, indirect effect,

second round effects). This study delivered multipliers as a side product, which refer to

impacts generated over the whole period up to 2030. They include the impacts during

construction in the first phase of the planning horizon and the impacts stemming from the use

of infrastructure after opening of the projects in later phases. The GDP and employment

multipliers applied for the analysis are provided in the table below. For example, the time

profile reveals that with increasing project lifetime the number of additional jobs increases

such that the multipliers grow with the number of time periods of project life.

Source : https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/internalisation_en

Source : https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2015-06-fraunhofer-cost-of-non-completion-of-the-ten-t.pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Table 4-1: GDP and employment multipliers applied for the analysis

Investment projects

GDP Multipliers in

bn€ / bn€ of investments in €2015

2016

2030

4.24*

to 1 to 5 1 to 10 1 to 15

years

1.95

11.624

3.43

15.124

5.49

19.024

Employment multipliers in job-years

/ bn€ of investments in €2015

16,566*

Source: M-Five calculations, Impact Assessment support study; * All TEN-T projects

1.4.4.

PRIMES-TREMOVE, NEAC and Panteia/NEA models role in the impact assessment

The

PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model

is a building block of the modelling framework

used for developing the EU Reference scenario 2016, and has a successful record of use in the

Commission's transport, climate and energy policy analytical work

–

it is the same model as

used for the 2011 White Paper on Transport and the 2016 European strategy on low-emission

mobility.

The

NEAC model

is a transport network model used to assess the impacts of infrastructure

investments on transport activity by mode and has been extensively used for the 2014 TEN-T

Corridor studies and the evaluation of the 2017 TEN-T Corridor work plans. NEAC model

represents implementetion of the core TEN-T network invetment plans.

In this impact assessment, the NEAC model has been initially calibrated on an update of the

EU Reference scenario 2016 (including few policy measures that have been adopted after its

cut-off date i.e. end of 2014). The EU Reference scenario 2016 assumes the completion of the

core TEN-T network by 2030 and of the comprehensive TEN-T network by 2050 and this

represented the starting point for the development of the Baseline scenario. Subsequently, the

NEAC model has been used to reflect the impacts of delays in the implementation of core

TEN-T network investments on the transport activity. The Panteia/NEA tool together with

NEAC model have been used for assessing the social benefits of the policy options, drawing

on input from the updated EU Reference scenario 2016.

1.5.

1.5.1.

Baseline scenario

Scenario design, consultation process and quality assurance

The Baseline scenario used in this impact assessment builds on the EU Reference scenario

2016 but additionally includes few policy measures adopted after its cut-off date (end of

2014). Building an the EU Reference scenario is a regular exercise by the Commission. It is

coordinated by DGs ENER, CLIMA and MOVE in association with the JRC, and the

involvement of other services via a specific inter-service group.

For the EU Reference scenario 2016, Member States were consulted throughout the

development process through a specific Reference scenario expert group which met three

times during its development. Member States provided information about adopted national

policies via a specific questionnaire, key assumptions have been discussed and in each

modelling step, draft Member State specific results were sent for consultation. Comments of

Member States were addressed to the extent possible, keeping in mind the need for overall

comparability and consistency of the results.

Source:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2015-06-fraunhofer-cost-of-non-completion-of-the-ten-

t.pdf

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Quality of modelling results was assured by using state of the art modelling tools, detailed

checks of assumptions and results by the coordinating Commission services as well as by the

country specific comments by Member States.

The EU Reference scenario 2016 projects EU and Member States energy, transport and GHG

emission-related developments up to 2050, given current global and EU market trends and

adopted EU and Member States' energy, transport, climate and related relevant policies.

"Adopted policies" refer to those that have been cast in legislation in the EU or in MS (with a

cut-off date end of 2014

). Therefore, the binding 2020 targets are assumed to be reached in

the projection. This concerns greenhouse gas emission reduction targets as well as renewables

targets, including renewables energy in transport. The EU Reference scenario 2016 provides

projections, not forecasts. Unlike forecasts, projections do not make predictions about what

the future will be. They rather indicate what would happen if the assumptions which underpin

the projection actually occur. Still, the scenario allows for a consistent approach in the

assessment of energy and climate trends across the EU and its Member States.

The report "EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport and GHG emissions - Trends to

2050"

describes the inputs and results in detail. In addition, its main messages are

summarised in the impact assessments accompanying the Effort Sharing Regulation

and the

revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive

, and the analytical work accompanying the

European strategy on low-emission mobility

1.5.2.

Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario

The projections are based on a set of assumptions, including on population growth,

macroeconomic and oil price developments, technology improvements, and policies.

Macroeconomic assumptions

The Baseline scenario uses the same macroeconomic assumptions as the EU Reference

scenario 2016. The population projections draw on the European Population Projections

(EUROPOP 2013) by Eurostat. The key drivers for demographic change are: higher life

expectancy, convergence in the fertility rates across Member States in the long term, and

inward migration. The EU28 population is expected to grow by 0.2% per year during 2010-

2030 (0.1% for 2010-2050), to 516 million in 2030 (522 million by 2050). Elderly people,

aged 65 or more, would account for 24% of the total population by 2030 (28% by 2050) as

opposed to 18% today.

GDP projections mirror the joint work of DG ECFIN and the Economic Policy Committee,

presented in the 2015 Ageing Report

. The average EU GDP growth rate is projected to

remain relatively low at 1.2% per year for 2010-2020, down from 1.9% per year during 1995-

2010. In the medium to long term, higher expected growth rates (1.4% per year for 2020-2030

and 1.5% per year for 2030-2050) are taking account of the catching up potential of countries

with relatively low GDP per capita, assuming convergence to a total factor productivity

growth rate of 1% in the long run.

In addition, amendments to two Directives only adopted in the beginning of 2015 were also considered. This

concerns notably the ILUC amendment to the Renewables Directive and the Market Stability Reserve Decision amending the

ETS Directive.

ICCS-E3MLab et al. (2016), EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport and GHG emissions - Trends to 2050

SWD(2016) 247

SWD(2016) 405

SWD(2016) 244

European Commission/DG ECFIN (2014), The 2015 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection

Methodologies, European Economy 8/2014.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Fossil fuel price assumptions

Oil prices used in the Baseline scenario are the same with those of the EU Reference scenario

2016. Following a gradual adjustment process with reduced investments in upstream

productive capacities by non-OPEC

countries, the quota discipline is assumed to gradually

improve among OPEC members and thus the oil price is projected to reach 87 $/barrel in

2020 (in year 2013-prices). Beyond 2020, as a result of persistent demand growth in non-

OECD countries driven by economic growth and the increasing number of passenger cars, oil

price would rise to 113 $/barrel by 2030 and 130 $/barrel by 2050.

Techno-economic assumptions

For most transport means, the Baseline scenario uses the same technology costs assumptions

as the EU Reference scenario 2016. For light duty vehicles, the data for technology costs and

emissions savings has been updated based on a recent study commissioned by DG CLIMA

Battery costs for electric vehicles are assumed to go down to 205 euro/kWh by 2030 and 160

euro/kWh by 2050; further reductions in the cost of both spark ignition gasoline and

compression ignition diesel are assumed to take place. Technology cost assumptions are based

on extensive literature review, modelling and simulation, consultation with relevant

stakeholders, and further assessment by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European

Commission.

Specific policy assumptions

The key policies included in the Baseline scenario, similarly to the EU Reference scenario

2016, are

CO2 standards for cars and vans regulations (Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, amended by

Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 510/2011, amended by Regulation

(EU) No 253/2014); CO2 standards for cars are assumed to be 95gCO2/km as of 2021 and

for vans 147gCO2/km as of 2020, based on the NEDC test cycle, in line with current

legislation. No policy action to strengthen the stringency of the target is assumed after

2020/2021.

The Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC) and Fuel Quality Directive

(Directive 2009/30/EC) including ILUC amendment (Directive 2015/1513/EU):

achievement of the legally binding RES target for 2020 (10% RES in transport target) for

each Member State, taking into account the use of flexibility mechanisms when relevant as

well as of the cap on the amount of food or feed based biofuels (7%). Member States'

specific renewable energy policies for the heating and cooling sector are also reflected

where relevant.

Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (Directive 2014/94/EU).

Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

(Directive 2011/76/EU amending Directive 1999/62/EC).

Relevant national policies, for instance on the promotion of renewable energy, on fuel and

vehicle taxation, are taken into account.

In addition, a few policy measures adopted after the cut-off date of the EU Reference scenario

2016 at both EU and Member State level, have been included in the Baseline scenario:

OPEC stands for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Source:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/technology_results_web.xlsx

For a comprehensive discussion see the Reference scenario report: “EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport

and GHG emissions -

Trends to 2050”

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Directive on weights & dimensions (Directive 2015/719/EU);

Directive as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by

rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure (Directive 2016/2370/EU);

Directive on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (Directive 2016/1629/EU),

part of the Naiades II package;

Regulation establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial

transparency of ports

;



The replacement of the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test cycle by the new

Worldwide harmonized Light-vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) has been

implemented in the Baseline scenario, drawing on work by JRC. Estimates by JRC

show a WLTP to NEDC CO

emissions ratio of approximately 1.21 when comparing

the sales-weighted fleet-wide average CO

emissions. WLTP to NEDC conversion

factors are considered by individual vehicle segments, representing different vehicle

and technology categories

Changes in road charges in Germany, Austria, Belgium and Latvia.

Reflecting the plateauing in the number of fatalities and injuries in the recent years, in the

Baseline scenario it has been assumed that post-2016 vehicle technologies would be the

main source of reduction in fatalities, serious and slight injuries while measures addressing

infrastructure safety (such as the existing RISM and Tunnel Directives), and driver

behaviour (such as legislation improving enforcement across borders, namely Directive

2015/413/EU facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road safety related

traffic offences) would compensate for the increase in traffic over time.

Delays in the implementation of core TEN-T network investments.

Building on previous

priority project reports (2012)

, the Impact Assessment support study shows 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. The figure below shows the cumulative core TEN-T investments

profiles: scheduled and with the delays assumed in the baseline scenario for all transport

modes.

Awaiting signature of act

(Source :

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2013/0157(COD)&l=en)

Simulation at individual vehicle level is combined with fleet composition data, retrieved from the official European

emissions monitoring database, and publicly available data regarding individual vehicle characteristics, in order to

calculate vehicle CO

emissions and fuel consumption over different conditions. Vehicle CO

emissions are initially

simulated over the present test protocol (NEDC) for the 2015 passenger car fleet; the accuracy of the method is validated

against officially monitored CO

values and experimental data.

... 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

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 4-1: Cumulative investment profile

–

scheduled and with delays (baseline scenario)

400

350

300

Billion €'2015

250

200

150

100

2017

2018

2019

2023

2024

2028

2029

Scheduled

Baseline

1.5.3.

Summary of main results of the Baseline scenario

EU transport activity is expected to continue growing

under current trends and adopted

policies beyond 2015, albeit at a slower pace than in the past. Freight transport activity for

inland modes is projected to increase by 28% between 2015 and 2030 (1.7% per year) and

51% for 2015-2050 (1.2% per year). Passenger traffic growth would be lower than for freight

at 17% by 2030 (1.1% per year) and 36% by 2050 (0.9% per year for 2015-2050). The annual

growth rates by mode, for passenger and freight transport, are provided in the figure below

Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU. The share of road transport in

inland freight is expected to slightly decrease at 70% by 2030 and 69% by 2050. Road freight

activity expressed in tonnes kilometres is projected to grow by 27% between 2015 and 2030

(47% for 2015-2050) in the Baseline scenario. For passenger transport, road modal share is

projected to decrease by 3 percentage points by 2030 and by additional 3 percentage points by

2050. Passenger cars and vans would still contribute 70% of passenger traffic by 2030 and

about two thirds by 2050, despite growing at lower pace (14% for 2015-2030 and 27% during

2015-2050) relative to other modes, due to slowdown in car ownership increase which is close

to saturation levels in many EU15 Member States and shifts towards rail.

Projections for international maritime and international extra-EU aviation are not included in the total passenger

and freight transport activity to preserve comparability with statistics for the historical period.

2033

2020

2021

2022

2025

2026

2027

2030

2031

2032

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 4-2: EU passenger and freight transport projections (average growth rate per year)

Passenger transport

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

Road

Rail

Aviation

Inland

navigation

0.0%

Road

'15-'30

Rail

'30-'50

Inland navigation

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

Freight transport

'15-'30

'30-'50

Source: Baseline scenario, Impact Assessment support study

Note: For aviation, domestic and international intra-EU activity is reported, to maintain the comparability with

reported statistics.

Rail transport activity is projected to grow significantly faster than for road, driven in

particular by the opening of the market for domestic passenger rail transport services and the

implementation of the TEN-T guidelines, supported by the CEF funding. Passenger rail

activity goes up by 33% between 2015 and 2030 (70% for 2015-2050), increasing its modal

share by 1 percentage point by 2030 and an additional percentage point by 2050. Rail freight

activity grows by 39% by 2030 and 75% during 2015-2050, resulting in 1 percentage point

increase in modal share by 2030 and an additional percentage point by 2050.

Transport activity of freight inland navigation

also benefits from the TEN-T core and

comprehensive network investments, the promotion of inland waterway transport and the

recovery in the economic activity and would grow by 23% by 2030 (1.4% per year) and by

43% during 2015-2050 (1% per year). However, as illustrated in Figure 4-3, delays in

investments due to permitting procedures would lead to lower activity than in the updated EU

Reference scenario over 2015-2020 for both rail and inland navigation.

Inland navigation covers inland waterways and national maritime.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Figure 4-3: Projected transport activity growth rates for rail and inland navigation in the

Baseline and the EU Reference scenario 2016 for 2015-2020

14%

12%

10%

Baseline

-2%

REF2016

Baseline

REF2016

Baseline

REF2016

Passenger rail

Freight rail

Inland navigation

Source: Baseline scenario and the updated EU Reference scenario 2016 (REF2016), Impact Assessment support

study; Note: inland navigation covers inland waterways and national maritime.

Domestic and international intra-EU air transport would grow significantly (by 41% by 2030

and 93% by 2050) and increase its share in overall transport demand (by 2 percentage points

by 2030 and by additional 2 percentage points by 2050). International maritime transport

activity is projected to continue growing strongly with rising demand for oil, coal, steel and

other primary resources

–

which would be more distantly sourced

–

increasing by 21% by

2030 and by 51% during 2015-2050.

The

declining trend in transport emissions is expected to continue,

leading to 13% lower

emissions by 2030 compared to 2005, and 15% by 2050.

However, relative to 1990 levels,

emissions would still be 13% higher by 2030 and 10% by 2050, owing to the fast rise in the

transport emissions during the 1990s. Aviation would contribute an increasing share of

transport emissions over time, increasing from 14% today to about 18% in 2030 and 21% in

2050. Maritime bunker fuel emissions are also projected to grow strongly, increasing by 10%

during 2015-2030 (24% for 2015-2050).

NOx emissions

would drop by about 42% by 2030 (52% by 2050) with respect to 2015

levels. The decline in

particulate matter

(PM2.5) would be less pronounced by 2030 at 40%

(56% by 2050). Overall, external costs related to air pollutants would decrease by about 43%

by 2030 (55% by 2050).

High congestion levels are expected to seriously affect road transport in several Member

States by 2030 in the absence of effective countervailing measures such as road pricing.

While urban congestion will mainly depend on car ownership levels, urban sprawl and the

availability of public transport alternatives, congestion on the inter-urban network would be

the result of growing freight transport activity along specific corridors, in particular where

these corridors cross urban areas with heavy local traffic. The largest part of congestion will

be concentrated near densely populated zones with high economic activity such as Belgium

Including international aviation but excluding international maritime and other transportation.

External costs are expressed in 2013 prices. They cover NOx, PM2.5 and SOx emissions.

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

and the Netherlands

–

to a certain extent as a result of port and transhipment operations

–

and

in large parts of Germany, the United Kingdom and northern Italy. Estimating the costs of

congestion is not straightforward, because it occurs mostly during certain times of the day,

often caused by specific bottlenecks in the network. In the Baseline scenario, total

congestion

costs

for urban and inter-urban network are projected to increase by about 17% by 2030 and

35% by 2050, relative to 2015.

Noise related external costs

of transport would continue to increase, by about 12% during

2015-2030 (18% for 2015-2050), driven by the rise in traffic.

External costs of accidents

are

projected to slightly go down by about 7% by 2030 (11% for 2015-2050).

1.6.

Assumptions used for modelling the policy options

The effectiveness of policy options in reducing delays is provided in Table 4-2, drawing on

stakeholders consultation. In the Panteia/NEA tool, these options influence the extent to

which the baseline delays can be reduced.

PO1 and PO2 are assumed to have earlier start dates compared to PO3, but PO3 is assumed to

be more effective in eliminating delays, and faster to reach full effectiveness. These

assumptions are based on the different types of legal instruments involved. PO1 involves

voluntary actions, and no binding time limits, but it can be implemented quickly. PO2

involves the establishment of national one-stop-shops following the approach adopted in the

energy sector, where it was found that it took longer than expected to transpose the legislation

and establish the one-stop-shops. PO3 involves the most complexity to initiate since it would

require a new EU framework, but once established it would potentially eliminate a greater

proportion of the delays, including those related to duplication of permitting procedures each

side of a national border.

Table 4-2: Assumptions regarding effectiveness of options to reduce delays

PO1

Year of launch

Effectiveness

Build Up period

Source: Impact Assessment support study

2020

15%

PO2

2022

60%

PO3

2023

80%

The level of effectiveness is derived from the consultation report which found that:

–

75% of 93 respondents fully or rather agreed that a ‘one-stop-shop’ would facilitate

and accelerate the permitting of TEN-T projects (Q31);

73% of the 96 respondents fully or rather agreed that such overall time-limit would

be useful in accelerating permitting procedures (Q34);

68% of 88 respondents expected that an EU Regulation on permitting procedures,

directly applicable in all Member States would be either effective of very effective

(Q47);

26% of 86 respondents expected that EU Guidelines (not legally binding) would be

either effective or very effective (Q47).

–

Thus, PO2 and PO3 which include mandatory provisions for a one-stop-shop and time limits

were assumed to have higher effectiveness rates in reducing delays in procedures than PO1

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

which contains measures which are not legally binding. PO3, which includes an overall EU

framework directly applicable in all Member States was assumed to have higher effectiveness

than PO2.

The impacts on the cumulative investment profile in each policy option is provided in Table

4-3. In the modelling framework, lower delays compared to the baseline lead to positive

modal shifts in the transport network, meaning in turn that user benefits (lower transport

costs) and external costs savings are generated at different points in the timescale. These

benefits are expressed as present value using a discount rate of 4%.

Table 4-3: Share of total investments in the policy options for 2020-2025 over the lifetime of

the projects

Cumulative investments (share of total

investments over the lifetime of the

projects)

Total investments

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Rail transport

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Waterborne transport

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

40.6%

41.0%

40.6%

53.8%

54.5%

53.8%

65.8%

66.7%

67.7%

65.8%

75.2%

76.1%

78.2%

81.1%

82.9%

83.8%

86.5%

87.7%

89.0%

89.7%

91.8%

92.7%

36.1%

36.4%

36.1%

46.9%

47.4%

46.9%

56.1%

56.8%

57.6%

56.1%

64.3%

65.1%

66.9%

69.5%

71.2%

72.0%

74.5%

75.6%

77.2%

77.9%

80.1%

81.0%

38.7%

39.0%

38.7%

50.1%

50.6%

50.1%

60.0%

60.7%

61.6%

60.0%

68.5%

69.3%

71.2%

73.9%

75.5%

76.4%

78.9%

80.0%

81.4%

82.1%

84.2%

85.1%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Source: Impact Assessment support study; waterborne transport covers inland waterways and maritime.

1.7.

Assumptions used for calculating the impacts on administrative burden

The methodology undertaken to assess the baseline and the impacts of the policy options on

the administrative burden draws on literature review and the outcome of the interviews

performed in the context of the Impact Assessment support study. The administrative costs

cover:



administrative personnel from public administration processing applications;

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel



administrative personnel from public administration providing feedback on the

outcome of the applications;

administrative personnel from the project managers, infrastructures managers, or any

other stakeholder required to produce documentation related to an assessment;

project managers and staff requiring time to follow the assessment procedures, i.e. to

obtain, renew and modify the application process.

The baseline assumptions and results for the evolution of administrative burden are provided

in Table 4-4. It considers the time spent (in person-hours) by the Promoters and the

Authority

, the labour cost per hour

, the number of new projects launched per year and the

total administrative cost in million €.

Table 4-4: Yearly administrative burden in the baseline scenario

Target group

Time spent per

project (hours)

29,788

5,872

Labour costs

per hour)

25.40

(€

Number

projects starting

per annum

190

Total

administrative

costs in million €

143.8

28.3

Promoter

Authority

Source: Impact Assessment support study

Table 4-5 shows the impact of each measure identified under the three policy options,

considering four main areas of intervention: authorisation and permits, public procurement,

state aid and other. The percentages represent the potential maximum administrative

cost/saving that each measure might achieve against the administrative cost currently incurred

in any given year. However, these impacts do not occur in the same years and often they are

not recurrent, as they include a combination of implementation and recurrent costs/benefits.

Several measures included in the different policy options require similar actions. When the

administrative costs of two measures were overlapping, their two figures have been

combined.

Table 4-5: Administrative cost per measure: maximum potential cost or saving against the

baseline scenario

Option

Description

Measures

Details

Promoter

Admin.

Cost

Authorities

Admin.

Cost

Option

Minimal

change

existing

instruments

and

development

Authorisation and permits

Guidelines for the permit granting procedures and

application of the EU acquis in this field.

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

-4.0%

1.0%

... Source: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure

and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC

... Source: Eurostat,

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Hourly_labour_costs

... Source: Eurostat

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Hourly_labour_costs

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Option

Description

of soft law as

well

accompanying

measures

Measures

Details

Promoter

Admin.

Cost

Authorities

Admin.

Cost

Public procurement

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and

better orientation of existing instruments (such as

measures encompassed in COM(2017) 573

“Helping investment through a voluntary ex-ante

assessment of the procurement aspects for large

infrastructure projects”, JASPERS or EIAH

support

No modification

Targeted technical assistance measures for

carefully selected projects of common interest

(including high quality and efficient packaging of

routine projects).

Effective technical assistance (e.g. Jaspers or the

European Investment Advisory Hub) to support

project preparation and horizontal issues affecting

the implementation of TEN-T projects, both at the

Member State and EU level (modelled on the

JASPERS initiative and/or systematically

involving cooperating Member States-JASPERS-

Commission to develop tailor-made solutions for

individual Member States).

Facilitation support provided by the European

Coordinators, where appropriate, in line with the

mandate defined in the TEN-T regulation.

-4.0%

1.0%

State aid

Other

0.0%

-4.0%

2.5%

-7.5%

2.5%

-4.0%

1.0%

Option

Limited

binding action

implemented

national

level

Authorisation and permits

Establishment of a one-stop-shop (OSS) at

national level. The OSS would continue to apply

national permitting rules (transposed from EU

directives)

–

legal requirement needed/similar to

TEN-E

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 time limits for permitting

procedures (possibly also for legal appeals while

preserving access to justice)

–

legal requirement

needed/similar to TEN-E

-10.0%

2.0%

-7.5%

2.0%

-7.5%

4.0%

Public procurement

Requirement to opt for a single legal framework

for public procurement of cross-border projects

(currently optional)

–

legal requirement needed

Guidelines for TEN-T project promoters and

better orientation of existing instruments (such as,

measures encompassed in COM(2017) 573

“Helping investment through a voluntary ex-ante

assessment of the procurement aspects for large

infrastructure projects”, JASPERS or EIAH

-2.5%

2.5%

-4.0%

1.0%

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Option

Description

Measures

Details

Promoter

Admin.

Cost

Authorities

Admin.

Cost

support).

State aid

No modification

Shorter deadlines for State aid clearance

–

similar

to EFSI projects.

0.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

2.0%

Other

Targeted technical assistance measures for

carefully selected projects of common interest

(including high quality and efficient packaging of

routine projects).

Definition of a specific framework for the

authorisation of carefully selected projects of

common interest. This would include integrated

procedures, time limits, cases for overriding public

interest and make requirement under existing

Directives directly applicable

–

legal requirement

needed.

Definition of a specific framework for single rules

to be applied in public procurement of cross-

border projects

–

legal requirement needed.

No modification

Shorter deadlines for State aid clearance

–

similar

to EFSI projects.

-4.0%

2.5%

Option 3: An

framework for

authorisation

of the project

of common

interest

Authorisation and permits

-7.5%

7.0%

Public procurement

-5.0%

5.0%

State aid

0.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

2.0%

Other

Targeted technical assistance measures for

carefully selected projects of common interest

(including high quality and efficient packaging of

routine projects).

-4.0%

2.5%

Source: Impact Assessment support study

To assess the cost savings, the number of projects being affected by each policy option has

been multiplied to the potential cost saving per project as provided in Table 4-5. The present

value over 2018-2030 has been further derived for each policy option and compared to the

baseline. A discount rate of 4% has been used for calculating the present value.

1.8.

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. This can be regarded as a

more conservative scenario relative to the central baseline estimate.

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 (see Table

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

4-2). Using a more conservative baseline scenario results in higher investments taking place

in the beginning of the period under all policy options and all transport modes, relative to the

assessment based on the central baseline (see Table 4-6).

Table 4-6: Share of total investments in the alternative baseline scenario and policy options

for 2020-2025 over the lifetime of the projects

Cumulative investments (share of total

investments over the lifetime of the

projects)

Total investments

Alternative baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Rail transport

Alternative baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Waterborne transport

Alternative baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Source: Impact Assessment support study

43.0%

43.3%

43.0%

55.8%

56.3%

55.8%

67.4%

68.2%

69.0%

67.4%

76.5%

77.2%

78.9%

81.3%

83.9%

84.7%

86.9%

87.9%

89.8%

90.4%

92.1%

92.9%

37.8%

38.1%

37.8%

48.4%

48.8%

48.4%

57.4%

58.0%

58.7%

57.4%

65.4%

66.1%

67.6%

69.7%

72.1%

72.8%

74.8%

75.8%

78.0%

78.6%

80.4%

81.2%

40.6%

40.8%

40.6%

51.7%

52.1%

51.7%

61.3%

61.9%

62.6%

61.3%

69.6%

70.3%

71.9%

74.2%

76.5%

77.2%

79.3%

80.2%

82.2%

82.8%

84.5%

85.3%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Overall, the policy options result in lower net benefits relative to the assessment based on the

central baseline. However, the ranking of the policy options in terms of net benefits does not

change (see Table 4-7). PO1 results in net benefits of

€1.8 bn for

the core TEN-T network

projects (€2.1 bn for the central estimate), while PO2 shows net benefits of €5 bn (€5.9 bn for

the central estimate) and PO3 €6.4 bn (€7.7 bn for the central estimate).

Table 4-7: 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)

PO1

PO2

PO3a/PO3b

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Core TEN-T network 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)

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

851

126

2,352

336

3,084

440

1,150

171

1,321

1,330

3,178

454

128

186

120

3,632

3,717

4,168

594

166

243

158

4,763

4,817

1,534

228

1,761

1,773

4,238

606

170

248

161

4,843

113

4,956

5,558

793

222

324

211

6,350

6,423

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Congestion

Accidents

Climate change

Total social benefits

Administrative costs reduction

Net benefits (present value)

977

984

138

2,688

2,751

123

180

117

3,524

3,565

Source: Impact Assessment support study

In addition, a

sensitivity analysis has been performed on the effectiveness rates.

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. Using more conservative effectiveness rates results

in somewhat lower investments taking place in the beginning of the period under all policy

options (in particular in PO1), relative to the central estimates and the baseline (see Table 4-

8).

Table 4-8: Share of total investments in the baseline scenario and policy options for 2020-

2025 over the lifetime of the projects, under alternative assumptions for effectiveness rates

Cumulative investments (share of total

investments over the lifetime of the

projects)

Total investments

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Rail transport

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Waterborne transport

Baseline

Option 1

40.6%

40.9%

53.8%

54.3%

65.8%

66.4%

75.2%

75.8%

82.9%

83.5%

89.0%

89.4%

36.1%

36.3%

36.1%

46.9%

47.2%

46.9%

56.1%

56.6%

57.4%

56.1%

64.3%

64.8%

66.5%

68.9%

71.2%

71.7%

73.9%

75.0%

77.2%

77.6%

79.6%

80.6%

38.7%

38.9%

38.7%

50.1%

50.4%

50.1%

60.0%

60.4%

61.3%

60.0%

68.5%

69.0%

70.8%

73.2%

75.5%

76.1%

78.3%

79.5%

81.4%

81.9%

83.7%

84.7%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

Option 2

Option 3

Source: Impact Assessment support study

40.6%

53.8%

67.4%

65.8%

77.7%

80.3%

85.9%

87.1%

91.3%

92.3%

Similar to the use of a more conservative baseline, lower effectiveness rates would lead to

somewhat lower net benefits relative to the central estimates (in particular for PO1). However,

the ranking of the policy options in terms of net benefits does not change. PO1 results in net

benefits of

€1.4 bn for the core TEN-T network projects (€2.1 bn for the central estimate),

while PO2 shows net benefits of €5 bn (€5.9 bn for the central estimate) and PO3 €6.7 bn

(€7.7 bn for the central

estimate).

Table 4-9: 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

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

919

136

3,168

452

126

4,363

622

172

1,225

182

1,407

1,416

4,224

603

168

248

160

4,827

137

4,964

5,817

829

230

340

221

6,646

6,731

PO1

PO2

PO3a/PO3b

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)

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)

PO1

1,055

1,062

PO2

186

120

3,620

103

3,723

PO3a/PO3b

255

166

4,984

5,048

680

101

781

786

2,344

335

137

2,679

2,756

3,228

460

128

189

123

3,688

3,736

Source: Impact Assessment support study

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 5: Auxiliary elements for the analysis of the problem and the definition of policy

options

The present annex further develops certain elements taken into consideration in the definition of

the problems and the elaboration of the policy options. In particular, it further develops certain

problem drivers in section 2.4 of the impact assessment and describes in more details the policy

options identified in section 5.2 of the impact assessment.

Detailed description of certain problem drivers

The following contextual elements further explain and illustrate the underlying causes to the

problems identified in the impact assessment.

Multiple stages and authorities involved in 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. For example, in

the Czech Republic, the three main permits can only be granted once around 15 binding

decisions of national, regional or local authorities have been issued. In Poland, the decision on

the implementation of state roads investment and the decision on location of railways must be

accompanied by the opinions of a least eight categories of authorities (Provincial and municipal

governments; the Minister dealing with health issues; the voivodship responsible for restoration

of monuments; the relevant maritime administration; the relevant regional directorate of State

Forests; and the relevant manager of rail/road infrastructure).

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

considered in environmental assessments, which leads to the involvement of several sectoral

authorities, either for granting permits or delivering an opinion or a decision. Competent

Ministries or authorities for environment, water, nature protection, cultural heritage, agriculture

and forest are typically requested for an opinion or a decision in the permitting procedure. The

level of decentralisation of the procedure is another factor explaining the number of authorities

involved in the procedure. As analysed in the exploratory study

, most permits or decisions are

delivered by national/federal authorities, in some Member States, certain permits, mainly related

to land-use, are delivered by regional authorities or governments (Austria, Germany, Hungary,

Poland, Romania), sub-regional authorities (Hungary) and municipalities (Czech Republic,

Romania). In a number of cases, this leads to repeating the permitting procedure, and where

relevant, the public consultation involved, in all regional or local jurisdiction crossed by the

project

A more decentralised procedure can also lead to additional administrative burden for project

promoters, especially when the regional or local authorities handle procedural aspects

differently. Interviewed stakeholders mentioned that where regional or local administrations

have a permitting role, the interpretation of what documentation needs to be provided by the

project promoter as part of an application can differ greatly from one authority to another, even

if the information to be provided is spelled out in the EIA directive.

In the Progress Report of January 2018 to the CBS Report

, it was highlighted once again that

delays in permitting often occur due to the involvement of multiple steps and multiple

See specifically Table 3 in the Annex 1 of the Exploratory Study, Milieu (2016) Study on permitting and facilitating

the preparation of TEN-T core network projects

For example, in Austria, procedures at State level for federal roads and rail projects will be repeated in all States

affected by the project. In Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania, land-use decisions must be obtained in all counties or

municipalities affected by the project.

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

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

authorities and a simplified process of permitting procedures was recommended. According to

this report, at least a mandatory joint procedure for all environmental assessment procedures at

project level stemming from EU legislation should be introduced, by grouping and aligning

several permitting steps time-wise without undermining the qualitative standards of the

assessment of the individual criteria. Indeed, this is a particularly complex domain which is not

helped by uncertainties related to certain provisions in some pieces of legislation (in particular

the Water Framework Directive and the Birds and Habitats Directives).

In addition, the large number of authorities involved in some countries makes the process highly

vulnerable to the administrative capacity of authorities to issue decisions within reasonable

timeframes. The lack of administrative capacity has been identified in particular in sectoral

authorities (for example, water, cultural heritage), and in regional/local authorities, in which

permitting is generally dealt with along with their regular workload, without dedicated extra

staff

Specific implications of cross-border context for the permitting of TEN-T projects

Limited cooperation in transboundary EIA

The EIA Directive sets out obligations regarding cross-border EIAs. The EIA Directive

establishes that, when a Member States is aware that a project is likely to have significant effects

on the environment in another Member State, or where a Member State likely to be significantly

affected requests it, the Member States planning the project must provide affected Member

States a description of the project, together with any available information on its possible

transboundary impact and information on the nature of the decision which may be taken (Article

7(1)). The affected Member State(s) can then decide to participate in the EIA, and if so, make

available the documentation to the authorities and the public likely to be concerned by the

project. CJEU rulings have also stressed that EIAs must take into account cross-border impacts

when part of the project is located in another Member State in view of not compromising the

effectiveness of the EIA Directive (case C-205/08)

. Taking into consideration of cross-border

impacts

–

which inevitably is the objective of the EIA Directive

–

adds on challenges for TEN-T

projects which are confronted with different ways of administrative proceedings across the

border.

During the permitting procedure of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Linked project outlined above, the

EIA procedure and the public consultation have not been coordinated between Denmark and

Germany, with the result that delays in Germany are severely impacting the timeframe of the

project, already approved in Denmark. Although Member States will often decide to carry out

separate EIAs in line with their own EIA procedures, aligning timeframes for the EIA procedure,

the public consultation and the decision-making process would facilitate the process leading to

approval.

There are also a number of examples of inadequate assessment of transboundary impacts in the

case studies. The failure to consider such impacts can fuel public opposition and provide project

opponents with justified grounds for appeals against projects.

In the Romanian-Bulgarian common section of the Danube

, the EIA in the initial feasibility

study was not properly addressed in a cross-border project context. The lack of attention to good

coordination between the two countries in the preparation and execution of the EIA was one of

the failures of that study.

Milieu, Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T core network projects, December 2016

European Commission, Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-

scale Transboundary Projects, 2013, p. 10.

Milieu (2016)

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

kom (2018) 0277 - Ingen titel

The Commission has produced guidance on transboundary EIAs

; However, the

implementation of Article 7 of the EIA Directive and in particular requirements concerning

public consultation has proved challenging in cross-border projects, first because it creates

additional obligations such as translating and adapting consultation documents, and because

Member States have to define responsibilities on both sides for the organisation of the public

consultation. Amendments to Article 7 of the EIA Directive, adopted in 2014 and which had to

be transposed by Member States by May 2017, are expected to facilitate EIAs for cross-border

projects. Under these changes, Member States involved in projects likely to have transboundary

effects are expected to consult with each other on these effects and measures to reduce or

eliminate these effects, and agree on a reasonable timeframe for consultations. The amendment

provides the Member States with the option of conducting cross-border consultations through a

joint body.

Finally, the Progress Report of January 2018 to the CBS Report

reiterated that the existing

conventions (such as the Espoo Convention) for cross-border projects are not used to the full

extent. The 'Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context'

allows for a coordinated,

cross-border comprehensive EIA, streamlining different national procedures with a joint

agreement and providing a single environmental report, it has been successfully used in the

context of certain energy infrastructure projects.

Poor strategic planning and diverging objectives

Cross-border infrastructure projects require an early and strong strategic planning based on clear

objectives and providing a sound basis for later decisions. The absence of this planning can

weaken project planning documents and assessments as well as create obstacles and delays in

implementation.

There is a particular need for early and transparent public participation, assessment of

alternatives and a clear project definition prior to the project decision. The importance of the

SEA and the opportunities offered by this instrument for early involvement are not always

properly explored. Early assessment of transport plans and programmes may help avoiding

problems at project level, later on in the project implementation.

Cross-border projects are often faced with different possibilities and diverging priority

objectives, especially when multiple countries are involved, like in the case of Rail Baltica

project

European Commission,

Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-

scale Transboundary Projects,

2013,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf

Op. cit.

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/Espoo_Convention_authentic_ENG.pdf

Milieu (2016) Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T core network projects