Activities of Andrey NOVAKOV related to 2022/2021(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU (debate)
Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on large transport infrastructure projects in the EU – implementation of projects and monitoring and control of EU funds
Amendments (12)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Remarks that with the Trans- European Transport Network policy, the EU aims to build an effective EU-wide transport infrastructure network through EU funding programmes and initiatives including the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the European Fund for Strategic Investment, Horizon 2020, or the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), among others;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Draws attention to the different management methods across different EU instruments and also to the different DGs responsible within the European Commission, requiring a significant degree of coordination: shared management between Member States and the Commission (DG REGIO) for the cohesion policy funds and direct management by the Commission for TEN- T and CEF under the responsibility of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) on behalf of DG MOVE;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Recalls that under the CEF programme, the Commission selects the infrastructure projects which will benefit from EU co-funding and determines the EU financial contribution on the basis of competitive periodical calls for proposals; is concerned about the risk of insufficient scrutiny of cost-benefit analyses (CBA) at project selection; welcomes that since 2015 the Commission has introduced a specific assessment of the projects’ CBA by dedicated external experts; regrets that this assessment may be solely based on the information contained in the project proposal; calls for the Commission to ensure that project promoters of large transport projects must submit in their application the raw data and analyses used for their CBA, in order to ensure adequate decision-making and use of EU funds;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Also regrets that the EU co-funded large infrastructure projects experience on average longer delays than comparable transport projects worldwide; believes that potential reasons for these longer delays are the specific coordination challenges faced by cross-border projects and that when selected, they were still affected by uncertainties, such as stakeholder acceptance or missing environmental permits;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Recommends that the Commission propose indicative definitions of a large regional, a large national and a large cross-border infrastructure project eligible for EU-funding to better focus the competing project proposals, to add clarity to the approved projects data collection and to further facilitate monitoring, control and evaluation activities;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. BIs concerned by the administrative burden that requesting additional information and analysis for the selection process may bring upon the project promoters; believes that a two-step approach whereby project promoters are invited to submit a comprehensive project proposal only once their expression of interest has been approved could be considered for the future programming period;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Encourages the Commission to consider a way in which it could be more visible in the stakeholder involvement process that could be extremely beneficial in promoting EU added value of large transport projects;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to further strengthen ex post evaluation indicators by introducing criteria such as road safety; reduction of deaths and serious injuries; reduction of emissions; reduction of noise pollution; and increase in economic activitylleviation of other environmental disturbances; increase in economic activity in terms of income and employment benefits for local businesses and population; time and transport cost benefits for people and freight and other social benefits; notes, in this regard, that the lack of effective enforcement related to the quality of infrastructure is a significant additional contributor to poor road safety resulting in deaths and injuries; believes that measuring economic impacts through regional or national macroeconomic models could assist in alleviating any potential risks arising from the lack of scrutiny9 ; _________________ 9 ibid.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls for completlose 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 corridors;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Calls for the fast adoption of the European Cross-Border Mechanism as a way to improve the efficiency of EU investments in cross-border transport infrastructure;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to establish a European fast track for the infrastructure projects along the core and comprehensive TEN-T network; The fast track should comprise of three pillars: - Binding ex ante consultations between the Member States and the Commission, prior to the submission of the projects application forms. This should shorten the procedure time by allowing the Member States to address potential negative observations by the Commission services as early as possible; - Accelerated environment impact assessment procedure and approval by the Commission to further reduce the application-to-implementation times; - Common EU-wide minimum standards for financial and economic assessment of the projects (i.e. economic viability, maturity, return on investment). This should bring clarity, uniformity and should work to minimise any potential issues arising with the carrying out of audits;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Proposes that contingency measures and funding flexibility be considered in order to allow for the continued implementation and completion of key projects in the event of force majeure or crisis situations and taking into account the general lengthy project duration, the introduction of appropriate indexing or other models to adjust construction and raw materials costs to the rate of inflation;