Activities of Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ related to 2022/2021(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU (debate)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the Union’s transport policy aims to ensure the smooth, efficient, safe and free movement of people and goods throughout the EU by means of integrated networks using all modes of transport, aiming to provide efficient, interoperable, safe and environmentally friendly mobility solutions within the EU and to create the conditions for a competitive industry generating growth and jobs;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Higlights that the Transeuropean Transport Network (TEN-T) policy is key to the good functioning of the internal market, to the connectivity and accessibility of all regions in the UE, as well as to the socioeconomic and territorial cohesion of the EU and to the European Green Deal objectives; recalls that large infrastructure projects play a crucial role in the delivery of the TEN-T policy as they are instrumental in removing bottlenecks and eliminating missing links, and are often located on cross-border sections;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that Member States’ transport networks cannot be looked at in isolation since a Europe-wide transport network has been clearly acknowledged as vision whose benefits go beyond isolated national action; stresses that the proper connectivity within and between European regions is crucial, especially with regard to and has been proven especially with the COVID-19 pandemic crisis as well as with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the critical need to establish alternative logistics routes using various transport modes; is concerned that the current social and political post-pandemic outlook, combined with the consequences of the war, is posing a further threat to the timely completion and development of large projects; highlights, therefore that the extension of the European transport network corridors to neighbouring non-EU countries (such as Ukraine, Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, etc.) would significantly improve the seamless functioning of the TEN-T network;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that large transport infrastructure projects are fully aligned with the objectives in European Green Deal and contribute to the sustainability, safety and interoperability of transport, as well as to job creation in the sector;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that in the EU, the competence to implement projects lies with the Member States; further recalls that Member States should ensure a coherence between their national transport and investments plans with the EU transport objectives in order to accelerate the implementation of large infrastructure transport projects and the finalisation of the TEN-T; highlights that the Commission has for this purpose appointed European coordinators to facilitate the implementation of all infrastructure projects along each of the nine core transport network corridors set out in the TEN-T Regulation; is concerned about the risk of misalignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities and call for a subsequent reinforcement of the role of European Coordinators in order to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure projects along the TEN-T corridors;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned by the limited CommissionStresses that the Commission should have a more prominent role in the oversight of project planning and implementation along transport network corridors, as Member States’ priorities are often mainly determined in the national context and may thus neglect cross-border sections where EU co-funded large infrastructure projects are located; highlights the risk of decreased utility derived from the use of EU funds if adequate performance is not achieved; believes that in order to address this issue, the coherence between national transport plans and investments and EU priorities should be strengthened, as should the conditionality of EU funding on engagement with EU priorities in terms of transport infrastructure deployment;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Acknowledges that according to the European Court of Auditors (ECA), large transport projects require significant implementation time; notes that according to the European Court of Auditors,ECA the average expected construction time for the audited EU co-funded large transport projects up to 2020 was 15 years, due in part to significant delays (of up to 11 years) compared with the initial schedules and that the average delay was 11 years and that such delays put the efficiency of EU co-funding at risk; highlights that this timeframe excludes the planning period, when projects can also receive EU co- funding for actions such as studies; notes that as the EU co-funding is organised around the seven-year multiannual financial framework period, large transport projects are often co-funded via several subsequent grants, each requiring a new project proposal and selection process; is concerned that this leads to duplication of effort for the project promoters and public authorities, increasing the administrative burden; notes with concern that such delays put the efficiency of EU co-funding at risk; urges Member States to implement Directive 2021/1187 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the TEN-T in order to enable simplified and harmonised permitting procedures and prevent delays in the projects;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses, moreover, that many EU co-funded projects are subject to cost overruns compared to initial estimates at the project planning stage; highlights that this will become even more problematic in the post-COVID-19 environment and in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; points especially to the rising inflation rates and the increasing costs of construction and raw materials, and their impact on project budgets; draws attention to the fact that inflation represents an enormous risk to current and future infrastructure projects, which may be stalled due to the highly inflated prices of building and raw materials; calls for the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from inflation, as well as other geopolitical and transition needs and challenges that affect the implementation of the TEN-T;
Amendment 18 #
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 reinforcement and the enlargement of the TEN-T, particularly in cross-border sections, and the integration of military mobility, the war in Ukraine and high inflation; calls for the enhancing of strategic infrastructure segments of the transport network to support their dual use for military and civilian purposes;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Highlights that the project monitoring performed by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) is mainly oriented towards financial aspects and outputs and does not focus on projects’ broader results and impacts; regrets that, consequently, there is only limited monitoring data that is suitable for the subsequent evaluation of these projeccalls on the Commission and CINEA to make use of more results-oriented goals and indicators to improve the potential for synergies between different funding programmes as well as to redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that while the Union produces systematic ex post evaluations of programmes, the Commission has not performed in a systematic method, nor has it required project promoters to perform, systematic ex post assessments of individual EU co- funded large transport projects; notes that there is currently no legal obligation for them to do so; highlights that these ex post assessments could increase transparency on the effectiveness of the projects and allow deriving lessons-learnt for future large infrastructure projects;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls for complete alignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities; regrets the Commission’s limited oversight over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridorcalls for a greater oversight of the Commission over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridors; notes that in many Member States, priority treatment is given to certain project categories based on their strategic importance, characterised by shorter timelines, simultaneous and/or simplified procedures; considers that when such a framework exists within a national legal framework, it should automatically apply to projects on the TEN-T; calls for Member States whose national legal frameworks lack such priority treatment to establish one for transport projects; concludes that this could have a positive impact in accelerating large transport infrastructure projects;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Asks that CEF funding for transport priorities be ring-fenced; calls for new and innovative modes of financing to bridge the funding gap of the projects, blending of grants and loans being the mechanism under the CEF to leverage public grants for key priority projects;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Is concerned that long waiting times at internal EU borders negatively affect EU-funded infrastructure and decrease its overall usability, with impacts on cities and citizens, air quality and noise pollution, as well as an increased risk of road accidents, while compromising working conditions for drivers; calls, therefore, for one minute to be set as thethe establishment of a minimum EU-wide standard time for the processing of heavy-duty vehicles at EU borders, in order to help facilitate optimal usage of transport infrastructure and networks;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the European Commission to propose a methodology for the assessment and adjustment of the projects`costs and their financing, fully considering the impacts of the overlapping climate, biodiversity and geopolitical crises;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CNotes that ex post evaluation is an important tool for providing insights into the performance and outcomes of transport infrastructure and decision- making, and for informing the public; calls for systematic ex post evaluation of the large transport projects co-funded by the EU and for their proper maintenance, following the criteria of coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and European added value;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recognises that transport and energy systems are interconnected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the trans- European energy network (TEN-E) is compatible with the TEN-T and that there are no gaps in the support architecture in order to deliver strategic independence and to achieve a comprehensive approach to public spending;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights the need for significant investment to ensure the decarboniseation of the transport sector, and to align it with the objectives in the European Green Deal, as well as to improve the safety, efficiency and accessibility of transport, in order to pave the way to sustainable next- generation mobility;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Calls for the prioritisation of projects contributing to the much-needed harmonisation of alternative fuels infrastructure deployment across the Union, as per the objective of Regulation 2022/XXX[Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation];
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recognises the need to ensure the connectivity of countries, and regions, including / particularly remote, insular and outermost ones, impacted by the war in Ukraine and/or Brexit.