Activities of Colm MARKEY related to 2022/2021(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU (debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU – implementation of projects and monitoring and control of EU funds
Amendments (42)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the findings of the European Court of Auditors Review No 05/2021 on the EU framework for large transport infrastructure projects: an international comparison. Notes that Review No 05/2021 identified four specific challenges for the Commission concerning the large transport projects: insufficient cost-benefit analysis, high administrative burden, lack of risk based approach in monitoring, and insufficient alignment between EU and national transport strategies;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Highlights that EU policy underperforms regarding the implementation of large infrastructure projects, especially in the areas of coordinating, selecting, monitoring, and evaluating infrastructure projects;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Calls on the Commission to reconsider its approach when evaluating projects and allocating EU-funding in order to address and reduce the administrative burden;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Calls on the Commission to use a risk-based approach to its monitoring of EU co-funded projects in line with the findings of the Court of Auditor's report;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Regrets that the Court of Auditors found that many EU co-funded projects are subject to cost overruns and significant delays compared to initial estimates at the project planning stage. Of the projects studied, the average budget overrun was more than €2 billion per project or an increase of 47% on initial estimates. Regrets that the audit also found that the average delay associated with the EU co-funded projects studied was 11 years;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1 e. Calls on the Commission to take measures and adapt the process of selection, planning and implementation of EU-funding projects to avoid significant cost overrun in order to properly utilise taxpayers money and meet the deadlines set out in TEN-T and other funding schemes;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes Directive (EU) 2021/1187 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans- European transport network (TEN-T)1 and urges the Member States to implement it more effectively. Stresses the call for Member States to put in place a simplified and harmonised permitting procedure regarding environmental assessments. Highlights that shorter timelines, simultaneous procedures and limited timeframes for appeals were indicated as measures possible for a more efficient system; _________________ 1 OJ L 258, 20.7.2021, p. 1.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses that multiple, different and complex permit granting procedures, cross-border procurement procedures and other procedures greatly hinder the timely implementation of projects and often result in significant delays and increased costs;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Recognises that Directive 2021/1187 calls on Member States to implement a simplified single point of contact procedure to reduce the complexity, improve the efficiency and increase the transparency of the procedures. The designation of an authority serving as point of contact for the project promoter should reduce the complexity, improve the efficiency and increase the transparency of the procedures;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Stresses that environmental evaluations should be carried out in compliance with the measures and timeframes outlined in the Smart TEN-T Directive;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from the enlargement of the TEN-T and the integration of military mobility, the war in Ukraine and high inflation; Notes that the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) reflects the priorities of the Union at the time of adoption in 2020 and stresses that since then the geopolitical situation in Europe has changed further adjustment of MFF is necessary;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights the key role of CEF funding in large infrastructure projects. Considers that the current financial envelope does not adequately reflect the Union's current needs and objectives. Stresses particularly the extension of TEN-T towards the Eastern Neighbourhood, military mobility, and complementing TEN-T and TEN-E networks;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Highlights that investment needs in the TEN-T are estimated at EUR 500 billion to complete the core network by 2030 and EUR 1.5 Trillion for the entire network by 2050; Recognises the strategic value of the TEN-T and CEF for meeting new objectives as regards the EU sustainable and smart mobility strategy, enhanced military mobility in the EU and stronger connectivity with our strategic partners in non-EU countries;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Stresses that Russia's illegal and unjusified war against Ukraine poses severe challenges for the EU transport and tourism sector. Further notes the impact the war has had on inflation rates in the Union as a result of rising fuel and energy prices; Calls for a coordinated response from the Union alongside increased funding to address these issues and to avoid any delays in the implementation of large infrastructure projects;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Notes the intention of the Commission to use the CEF to support interoperability and connectivity projects linking the EU and Ukrainian transport networks; Asks that a separate envelope for solidarity lanes between the EU and Ukraine be established. Stresses the need to increase to the current CEF budget for the period 2021-2027 and further calls on the Commission to plan an ambitious successor programme to CEF II for the MFF post-2027;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. Recognises that the revision of Regulation 1315/2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the TEN-T network could see an additional investment need of 30% in average annual investments.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3 f. Considering the current geopolitical reality, the EU's new priorities should be matched with additional money, and should not come at the expense of other transport programmes and priorities;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3 g. Stresses the strategic importance of the frontloading CEF to ensure the money is utilised by the end of the current programming period;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 h (new)
Paragraph 3 h (new)
3 h. Stresses the need for the Commission to carry out an assessment of the economic and social consequences of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine on all modes of transport in the EU and to present a proposal with legislative and/or financial measures within the MFF framework, to mitigate the negative effects;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
3 i. Calls on the Commission to provide appropriate funding to Member States for the development of dual use infrastructure;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be ring-fenced; Regrets that the Commission has proposed earmarking CEF funding for reallocation in the Digital Europe Programme of the European Chips Act; Stresses the need for the CEF to be used solely for transport related initiatives;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a legislative framework in order to create a Single European Digital Enforcement Area (SEDEA) in order to enable responsible enforcement authorities to conduct targeted risk-based controls and inspections;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Welcomes the RePower EU Communication and the Commission’s intention to establish ‘go to areas’ with simplified permitting procedures for critical energy infrastructure. Notes that this concept could be extended to critical transport infrastructure projects aimed at decarbonising the sector;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for systematic ex post evaluation of the large transport projects co-funded by the EU and for their proper maintenance; ; Asks that due consideration be made by Member States and project promotors during the planning stages to the maintenance costs over the life-time of an infrastructure project. Insists that this requirement be a precondition for receiving funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that Member States should ensure coherence between the TEN-T Regulation and their national transport and investment plans. Stresses that projects within Member State national plans should not be prioritised ahead of projects that are aligned with the Union's transport objectives;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for the prioritisation of cross- border interconnectivity projects and the interconnectivity of different transport modes; Stresses that Member States should identify strategic segments, that enhance cross-border connectivity and consider their urgent achievement to be the highest priority;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Highlights that TEN-T funds should be used to promote broader European connectivity rather than for the prioritisation or protection of national interests;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Recalls the importance of increasing connectivity of the network, which depends on interconnecting projects often implemented by various Member States along one corridor. Calls for better alignment and coordination between EU and national plans for transport infrastructure;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Notes that airport and port connectivity by train is lacking in many Member States and calls for multimodal connectivity to primary airports to be addressed as a priority;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Underlines the need to promote synergies between the TEN-T and TEN-E networks to significantly increase the production, supply and storage of renewable energy in the Union;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Notes the short term necessity to import LNG as a transitional fuel;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10 c. Highlights the potential of ports in wind energy production for the creation of renewable fuel; recognises the role that both TEN-E and TEN-T can play in realising this potential;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Highlights the need to prioritise smart and sustainable transport projects and to significantly increase capacity and interoperability in smart and sustainable modes of transport. Notes that refuelling and electrical grid infrastructure and an increased supply of sustainable energy are critical to meeting the targets of the Green Deal and strategic independence;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Suggests that TEN-T criteria are adapted to include energy generation capacity in addition to its footfall and tonnage requirements in order to better align TEN-E and TEN-T to meet the Union's renewable energy targets, as well as the decarbonisation of our transport system;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12 c. Stresses the urgent need to complete the deployment of ERTMS by 2030. Highlights that this process is ongoing for more than 20 years and calls on Member States with interconnected rail systems to explain the delays and immediately put forward national plans to deploy ERTMS;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 d (new)
Paragraph 12 d (new)
12 d. Strongly welcomes the Commission’s RePowerEU plan and asks that the Commission address issues relating to rising transport and energy costs and improve energy independence in the Union;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 e (new)
Paragraph 12 e (new)
12 e. Calls for the swift agreement and implementation of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 f (new)
Paragraph 12 f (new)
12 f. Recognises that Maritime seaports are clean energy hubs of the future and important facilitators of the energy transition across Europe. In their role as energy hubs, maritime seaports will be essential in realising the EU’s climate objectives for 2030 and 2050, as well as the ambitions outlined in the REPowerEU plan;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 g (new)
Paragraph 12 g (new)
12 g. Stresses that maritime seaports are increasingly taking up new responsibilities and are involved in new services, such as sustainable energy production, research on the blue economy, and military mobility. In their role as multi-service actors, maritime seaports can substantially contribute to a sustainable, digital and resilient European economy;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Recognises the importance of the TEN-T network for improved connectivity with strategic partners in third countries; Calls on the Commission to strengthen cross-border connections towards the Eastern Neighbourhood, EFTA countries and the UK;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Recalls the Commission Communication from12 May 2022 on “Solidarity Lanes" which outlines several transport infrastructure challenges facing the EU and its neighbours. Highlights the importance of addressing these challenges in order to support global food security and the recovery of the Ukrainian economy. Stresses that the Communication proposed assessing the extension of the European Transport Corridors into Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova;