Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMohammed Chahim
Colleagues, this report offers a balanced path forward. It strengthens resilience, supports industry, and accelerates the transition to a more sustainable and circular economy. It is about securing Europe's future economically, industrially, and strategically. I invite you all to support it, and I look forward to the upcoming negotiations with all the other political groups to make sure that this report becomes our report and gives a strong message to our industry. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you, rapporteur. And now we will have our shadows. And, first, from EPP, Miss Susana Solis Perez.
Susana Solís Pérez
Thank you, sir. I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mohamed, for his work on this file. This is a targeted but technically complex piece of legislation, where we need to strike a balance between security of supply and competitiveness. At the moment, there is a clear asymmetry. New obligations for industry are moving faster than the support measures to help companies secure access to critical raw materials.
Some brief comments regarding the draft report. First, on the delegated acts, we are supportive of strengthening risk preparedness. But the power conferred to the commission via delegated act without safeguards may risk competitiveness and gamble with the resilience of our industry and supply chains. Second, on the labeling requirements, the commission's proposal to extend labeling to new product categories already broadens the scope considerably. But the draft report goes further by adding any other relevant product containing permanent magnets.
This creates, I think, unpredictability and uncertainty. In my opinion, any expansion beyond the existing list should be properly justified by its recovery. Third, removing the consideration of pre-consumer waste might be too burdensome. We have to think of it. And finally, on the definition of manufacturing waste, the draft report introduces a new legal definition of what manufacturing waste consists of, and that is not something we should be doing in a targeted amendment to the Critical Raw Materials Act.
This goes beyond the scope of this file and risks creating inconsistency with other EU policies. So, I agree with many of your proposals. I also we are missing some concrete proposals to facilitate sourcing diversification and access for European companies because if we want resilience, we also need to provide the tools to achieve it. So I'm looking forward to working together on these points and, of course, on some of your points that I also agree on. Thank you.
Thank.
Borys Budka
thank you very much. And missus Victoria Ferrens from PFE on behalf of mister Andreas Gjerk.
You've got a busy day today.
Viktória Ferenc
Mister Gjerk is not, it was not able to be present on this meeting, but I will read his opinion, his contribution on the topic. First, I would like to thank the reporter for his draft report, which sets a good foundation for the further work on the file. I would like to outline five main points of my group approach towards this file. First, the EU indeed faces deficiencies in critical raw material supply, gaps in the collection and recycling of post-consumer waste, and the lack of dedicated funding. For this reason, we agree with the main objective of the proposed amendments to the Critical Raw Material Act, which is to create a stable market for the EU raw materials value chain.
We also believe that the resilience of the EU industrial sector producing strategic technology products should be reinforced. However, we do not consider the set of instruments proposed by the commission to be acceptable, especially when these proposals would result mainly in the extension of administrative and reporting obligations. The objectives cannot be achieved by the commission alone, leaving out the member states, especially in areas where implementation directly affects national industrial policy priorities. Second, we also oppose that this commission would provide itself with legal powers to impose binding risk-reduction measures on large companies identified by it. This would give the commission direct intervention in companies' purchasing and security of supply decisions, which could have a direct impact on national industrial policy priorities and, in some cases, defense industrial supply chains.
Third, we believe that the identification of large companies using strategic raw materials, the request for data provision for them, or the imposition of any obligation on them can only be implemented with providing information to the member state concerned and its full involvement in the information flow. Fourth, on preconsumer waste, there is a risk that this will hinder the recycling of post-consumer waste, which is of paramount importance. In our opinion, it is very important to define the concept of pre-consumer waste precisely. Fifth, from any industrial policy perspective, we consider it of paramount importance that the new obligations do not result in unjustified administrative burdens for companies, and do not weaken the competitiveness of European industry. Therefore, we consider it necessary to adopt a more flexible approach towards the commission calls and the implementation deadlines.
We will table our amendments soon, and look forward to the cooperation and work on this file. Thank you.
Mariateresa Vivaldini
Thank you, chair. Honorable Collegii.
Ladies and gentlemen, against the current backdrop with heightened geopolitical tensions and competitiveness, the issue of critical raw materials isn't just an industrial issue, but a strategic one. The EU has to bolster its autonomy, reducing external dependency, and making sure we have security of supply. So the position we're taking is very clear. We want to strengthen the Critical Raw Materials Act, but through a pragmatic, realistic approach that is focusing on competitiveness. The measures that have to be put forward have to be efficient, but also sustainable from the business' point of view.
We have to make sure there isn't rigidity, and that it isn't difficult to implement. I'm very happy that the rapporteur is open to the issue of export restrictions on certain critical raw materials such as metal waste. We have to make sure that our supply chains are resilient. We have to promote diversification and bolster circularity by recovering waste materials. This is a very immediate and specific solution put forward.
We're going to have to guarantee better European coordination, avoiding fragmentation within the internal market, and making sure that the member states remain sufficiently involved. We mustn't ignore safety issues, especially in more sensitive areas where we have to protect strategic information. This has to remain a priority. Our goal is to have a regulatory framework that bolsters the EU's position by providing support for an industry and make sure that the industry is long-lasting. Thank you.
Sara Matthieu
Thanks a lot, Chair, and many thanks, of course, also to the rapporteur for his draft report. I think it really goes in the right direction. Maybe just in general, our assessment as a group is that the EU needs much more European coordination when it comes to our industrial policy. And so, in that sense, the issue of risk preparedness is a revealing example. When China, for instance, restricted some of the CRM exports last year, many large companies were actually not prepared for that despite our legislation.
So that's why we support the commission's proposal to identify risks and, of course, to oblige measures like diversification and secondary raw materials. I think the commission is probably better equipped than member states to do so, especially, of course, when it concerns multinationals. But, when it comes to the recycled content of permanent magnets in Article 29, we do have an issue with the commission's proposal to actually include preconsumer waste. And I do understand that there may be volumes of manufacturing waste that right now are insufficiently recycled. And if that's the case, of course, we should take action.
But, we should also finally start preparing for the collection, the sorting, the recycling of increased volumes of products that actually reach their end of life. And so there's real risk, I think, of incentivizing that post consumer recycling by just mixing everything up into one recycled content target. So, at the very least, if there is to be a target to boost recycling of manufacturing waste, then it should be a separate one. And then maybe finally, I do appreciate that the draft report introduces some elements when it comes to resource efficiency. I think it's an underestimated but really crucial factor for our competitiveness and that of our industries.
So article five of the CRMA says that the commission and the member states have to undertake efforts to moderate the expected demand. Article 44 actually talks about monitoring starting in May 2027 already. So colleagues, I would say, let's use this occasion to build on it. We should use all means at our disposal to make sure that we reduce our resource dependencies. Looking forward to the negotiations.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And we still wait for mister Barry Andrews from Renew as a shadow, but we've got our guests from the commission. So I give the floor to Mister Canton from DG Grow for two minutes, please.
Joan Canton
Thank you very much, Norbold Chair, and thank you, dear reporter, dear Shadow reporters, for this draft report. We're very happy to be here and to listen to the views of the parliament on this topic. In a few words, we adopted this proposal, as you know, as part of the Resource EU action plan at the end of last year. This was a response to the latest trade restriction measures taken by China at the time. It was also, I would say, a response to the initial implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act and also the realization that, in some cases, the resilience of the economy and the resilience of our large companies, in particular, was not exactly sufficient to deal with that kind of supply shocks.
So the intention is to be targeted, but to be targeted in order to improve and to reinforce the preventive nature of the Critical Raw Materials Act, the preparedness of the union, and also the resilience through additional circularity. So we have two main sets of amendments. I would say there's one third one as well in relation to the strategic projects in the number, of course. But if I mentioned the two main types of amendments, we have the streamlining and strengthening of the obligations on large companies using strategic raw materials. The idea here is really to give a chance, but also to increase incentives for large companies to invest and be better prepared and prevent disruptions of supply chains.
Because what we came to realize with the restrictions from last year was that companies were not always ready on time to deal with these disruptions, that there was a need to provide additional incentives. And the approach is twofold: first, with a list of measures, but also indeed with the possibility to do more through a delegated act. The second aspect is in relation to the resilience of the permanent magnet supply chain in particular, since this was directly targeted by China and better restrictions from China. We have the idea to boost resilience and diversification of rare earth elements, and to do so by promoting indeed additional labels for some products, but also by boosting all sorts of possible waste and scrap that could be recycled. So we welcome very much the draft and the fact that, in particular, it's focused and targeted on specific amendments that we tabled with additional suggestions.
Of course, we welcome additional suggestions. I think it's important that it remains quite targeted. Just a few reactions on some of the aspects. Just on the number of calls that we have per year, our intention is also to take stock of what we've seen in practice for the time being with the calls, which is that we have a large number of companies interested in this, that it takes quite a lot of time to assess this, and that we want to give predictability to companies. So our idea with the suggestion to have at least one call per year was to say, let's not open a new call until the ongoing one is finalized.
And it takes us up to 9 months to finalize the assessment of applications. And therefore, it's challenging to do always more than one call, or at least if we have so many applications like we've had today. The second thing is on the need to invest in mitigation measures. Just to clarify one thing, we trust the companies. We want to work with companies.
We think that they are the best place to decide which measures they should take. But at the same time, it is also very important that they have strong incentives to do so. And we can help. We can support them. But I just want to recall that already with the existing Critical Role Materials Act, they're supposed to do a lot of these things.
So, we need to be careful that we don't, let's say, postpone actions by, let's say, giving the possibility for companies to keep waiting for additional guidance, recommendations, suggestions, either from the commission or from Member States. And just to be very clear, despite the proposal that we make, and we've made this clear to member states as well, we don't intend to work alone on this. We want to continue working with member states on these aspects. But we do think that from a single market perspective, it makes sense that the European Commission has the overview on these aspects, because we've seen that so far the implementation is otherwise challenging. Last aspect, and then I'll stop, on the secondary content of permanent magnets in products.
So, I mean, we fully subscribe to the objectives of boosting the uptake of secondary materials. I think it's clear for everyone, and we all share this aspect. On the question of pre versus post consumer waste, really, our intention is not either or. I mean, it's not or, it's the end. It has to be pre-consumer waste.
It has to be post-consumer waste. The way we define pre consumer waste, I mean, we haven't defined it properly in the act because we felt that we have standards that can do that. Happy to clarify what we have in mind. Really, what we have in mind is we need to be able to capture everything upstream, midstream, when it comes to waste that could then be reused. But of course, we have to do this in an intelligent manner, because it has to be linked to the capacities that we have in Europe to use this.
First, to generate this waste, because if we have no manufacturing in Europe, then we have no manufacturing waste. And of course, we're pushing very hard to create these manufacturing capacities. And the second aspect is as we develop the capacity that we can use this, that it can integrate without creating negative incentives on the post-consumer aspects, because we fully agree as well that it's time that we develop the post-consumer waste and the capacity to recycle the products at the end of their lifetime. So it's this balance that we're trying to keep in mind, and to make sure that we can continue to do so. I think I'll stop here.
I'm happy to clarify where it needs to be. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And in the QTI procedure, we've got Sophie Eriksson. The floor is yours.
Sofie Eriksson
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Mohamed for a thorough and well-prepared report, which I, of course, support. We are in a situation where the EU's access to critical raw materials can no longer be taken for granted. Geopolitical tensions and export restrictions clearly show how vulnerable we are. It is therefore essential that we now strengthen Europe's security of supply. Predictability is crucial.
Companies looking to invest in Europe need clear and stable frameworks. That is why your proposal to set a minimum of two application rounds per year, rather than a cap, is very reasonable. Perhaps the most technically important issue concerns how we define recycled content in permanent magnets, including manufacturing scrap, may deliver quick results on paper, but risks weakening incentives to build real recycling capacity for end-of-life products. Here, the rapporteur's clarification is well justified and important to support. I'm not sure how much time I have.
Is it okay? Okay. Thank you. Okay. At the same time, we need to get okay.
Thank you. We need to get investments off the ground. Proposals such as contracts for difference can play an important role in reducing risks for strategic projects. They can provide their predictability that is needed. I also want to emphasize how important this predictability is for our municipalities and regions that need to invest in and around mining sites.
Regional investments in daycare, schools, and infrastructure require predictability in communities that are dependent on limited numbers of employers. We must strengthen Europe's control over critical raw materials, but do so in a way that builds long-term sustainability, preserves a level playing field, and safeguards a role in the global economy. Thanks.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. I don't have any other person who wants to take the floor in cut the eye procedure. So I will give the floor to our reporter for your remarks at the end of the discussion.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you very much, Chad. I have to say, last time, we did it in 8 months. We had a great team. As some members are still here. And, today, I spoke with the previous rapporteur.
I think Hildegard Bentley played an enormously important role, I have to say, together with the previous rapporteur. I think we can do it again. We can go quite fast. I have to say most comments that I hear from a broad perspective of political groups are quite aligned. Maybe I should say a little bit about the intention that I at least have.
When it comes to the amendment, one that addresses all the types of products that are associated with permanent magnets, it's really precise. What I don't want is that we need to adjust it every year because of some innovation, because of products that are under the market that then become a source of these important products. For example, drones were not in the last time. They're in now. I don't know what will happen in a year.
Therefore, I, but legally, we can look at it. We have to formulate it in such a way that we can adapt it faster, or at least give the commission the tools to extend it if needed. We cannot wait for a legislative procedure that could take up to 2 years to include the product. I know our predictability, and I understand that we need to make it as transparent and predictable for companies as possible, but we should also be able to adapt, because those resources are important. For me, essentially, why we did this is we wanted to know where these critical raw materials are in the economy.
That's point one. I think that we can improve a little bit. I think it's very good that the commission is taking up that responsibility. At the same time, we need to make sure that the commission or later on maybe the center, if it comes, needs to be equipped. I don't want to criticize the commission, but, of course, it's a bit difficult that we need to wait for the first round to be finished before we do another call when it comes to these strategic projects.
And I understand it when it comes to capacity, but that's not, I think, the right signal we should give to industry. I mean, like, theoretically, if you have an idea, you should come to the commission. They should have the framework. They should judge. And then within a couple of months or half a year, you should have your green light or not.
I mean, understand the way they do it now, but I'm trying to sketch what the ideal situation is. Therefore, I think there's a minimum of two, but given the flexibility of the commission to do a bit more than that, is the way we approach it. But more than willing to listen to the others, to see if we can come up with a better text. When it comes to manufacturing waste or post-pre-consumer waste, define it. That's the most important thing, and try not to fool ourselves.
You know, when we have these targets that deal with reusing or recycling materials from our economy, we do it because we think these targets need to be met. We should not change the definition in order to meet the targets without having any economic benefit for us all. So let's be precise about what we mean. Therefore, I came with the definition that I took from another piece of legislation, namely the battery legislation that we also set up here in this committee. That also creates predictability for industry that you do not have differences in definition.
But the idea is to understand how this adds up to the target of having enough of these materials for our economy. Let me finalize by saying I really look forward to continuing working on this file with you. Let's try to come up with a very broad coalition in this house to make sure we signal that we, as a leader committee, think this is a very important topic that we need to work on with a broad coalition of political groups. I think we can get there, and we can finish it very, very fast. Thank you very much, Chair, and see you next time.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And last but not least, we got the shadow rapporteur from Renew. So I will give the floor to Mr. Barry Andrews.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for your flexibility, and apologies for being late. I'll be speaking on behalf of our renewed shadow, Brigitte Vandenberg, who cannot be here today. First and foremost, on behalf of Brigitte, let me thank the rapporteur and his team for their work on this report. Europe's one-sided dependency on imports of critical raw materials is a grave threat to developing our defense capabilities, a competitive digital ecosystem, and a green industrial sector.
Creating resilient supply chains is growing more urgent as the world becomes more turbulent. Part of the solution is to ensure that large companies assess their vulnerabilities. When creating such regulatory burden, we have to think twice about clarity and proportionality. That is why we will propose to provide companies with guidance on their obligations in advance, to streamline information requested by the commission with assessments companies already do, and to give companies room to determine the best mitigation measures. However, the more important step is that the EU actually helps create the possibilities for companies to diversify, substitute, recycle, or reassure.
This report already improves the framework for circularity. We will propose to expand the possibilities to retain scrap containing critical materials in Europe. And finally, we need to be ambitious in what comes next. We need a CRM center that has the right tools to help key CRM projects and bring off takers on board. We need proper funding from the ECF and potentially provisions in the Industrial Accelerator Act.
As renewed, we look forward to delivering on this together. Thank you, President.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now we have finished item 10. So we will have a short break, and then we will have the joint meeting with the Tran Committee, and we will discuss the establishing connecting Europe facilities. So please, come back here at before, four and a half for the last point. Dear colleagues, please take your seats.
Hello? Okay, dear colleagues. Please take your seat and we start our joint committee meeting. So, first, I just announced some things, and I will give the floor to the vice chair, dear colleague from TRAN committee, and mister Sankivitos will lead the procedure. So, first, adoption of the agenda.
No comments. So the agenda is adopted. Then I'd like to welcome six visitors invited by Missus Vivian Costanto. Then adoption of minutes, I propose to adopt the minutes of our 5 November 2025 committee. No objections were adopted.
And consideration of draft report establishing the Connecting Europe facility for the period 2028 to 2034, amending regulation 2024, 1679, and repealing regulation 2021, 1120, in '53. And if we've got approximately 56 minutes for the discussion. So first, as always, we've got two rapporteurs and double shadow rapporteurs, and we've got also the reggae reporter as an opinion-giving committee. So first, we've got them. And then if time permits, we will have a catch the eye procedure.
So if someone wants to be in the sketch, the eye procedure, then there will be the chance and just put your name, plate name, and I hope that we will have enough time. So I will give the floor to TETRAAM vice chair. So please leave the rest.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Yes. Thank you very much, dear chair, dear Boris, and good afternoon, dear colleagues. So without further ado, we'll go ahead, and I will give the floor to the rapporteur from both committees, in order of the groups, for a maximum of four minutes each. And we start with the ITRE corruptor, Miss Camilla Gazuk Pichovich.
Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I would like to start by first thanking my Tran corruptor, Oyana, for her cooperation and absolutely great work done so far in developing the draft report. I look forward to continuing our work together during the upcoming negotiations.
TEPF is, of course, we know this, one of the most successful and popular EU funding programs. This is demonstrated by a strong oversubscription and an impeccable track record when it comes to the projects completed. On the energy side, it was through TEP that we managed to fully synchronize the Baltic States to the EU energy grid, turning the page from the Soviet era to a new chapter of freedom and energy independence. Even now, in the current iteration of the MFF, the ZEF has remained a standalone program, which demonstrates, once again, the recognized added value and importance of the instrument for completing our trans-European transport and energy networks. On the energy side, the main mission of the ZEF remains ensuring the funding for cross-border interconnection infrastructure, allowing us to remove bottlenecks, better integrate renewables, and improve cross-border energy flows.
However, given the complex geopolitical context, we cannot continue in a business-as-usual format. CEF needs to adapt and respond to the global challenges. The substantial increase in budget for military mobility is part of that response, but a clear signal also needs to come from the energy side. The current geopolitical events have shown us that energy infrastructure has become an essential target in the case of armed conflict. Whether it was in Ukraine or in the Middle East, the lesson we need to draw is that we must protect our critical energy infrastructure.
Europe is currently vulnerable and already experts are exposing cyber attacks as well as hybrid actions that aim to sabotage our energy infrastructure. TEV can play a strong active role and invest in the cross-border projects that secure these objectives. Together with the protection of critical infrastructure, we also need to think about our dependencies and future energy needs. The past weeks have revealed our still strong dependency on fossil sources, especially in relation to liquid fuel originating in unstable areas. The vulnerability would be even greater in case of a security crisis in Europe.
CEF needs to be part of the solution to addressing this vulnerability. It is through supporting more cross-border European Union cooperation and investing in pan-European infrastructure, allowing us to produce alternative fuels locally and transport them to the areas where they bring higher European added value, that ZEF can contribute to the same. For this purpose, complementarity with the NRPPs and ECF, Horizon, and Global Europe programs is also essential. My priorities as a corruptor in charge of energy are to make sure that the program is also equipped to respond to future crises that actively contributes to the decarbonization of our energy mix, increasing affordability, reducing our external dependencies, and ensuring reliable energy supplies, protecting our energy infrastructure. Together with the Transporter, we agreed that the European Parliament needs to have a clear say on defining the priorities of the ZEF as well as on shaping the future governance of the program.
The proposed structure reflects this approach and is aligned with the COP guidelines. We want to work closely with the commission while also fully exercising our prerogatives as co-legislators. This approach is also valid for the budgetary structure. We agree that the commission should have a level of flexibility that allows us to respond to crises, but nevertheless consider that this should not become a blank check for the commission. This is why the draft report clearly separates transport, military mobility, and energy in three different chapters in order to obtain a better balance between flexibility and the much needed predictability.
Dear colleagues, I look forward to your constructive input and amendments as the April 22 deadline is approaching. CEF needs to continue its current successful path, it also needs to adapt to current global challenges and equip our union with the right tools that increase our resilience and ability to withstand future crises. Finally, last sentence, I would like to thank you, the technical teams, and the secretariats. In particular, as in my capacity, I work more closely with the ITRE secretariat for all the assistance and technical support offered so far. Thank you very much.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
K. Thank you very much. Let's try to keep it within four minutes, and then other speakers within two minutes, because then we leave some time to catch the eye. On Tran, co reporter, Oyhane
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
and all our teams for working together and allowing us to come up with a common position on this draft report. And I'm sure we're going to continue our excellent cooperation over the next few weeks. I would like to insist on the political and strategic importance of the CEF against the backdrop of a tricky moment. This will help us reinforce the role of our ports. This is very important for competitiveness and European autonomy.
And it is necessary in order to get rid of cross border obstacles, to bolster the single market and improve our single market. We have a lot of delays on high-speed tracks. And one of the reasons is because the governments don't see it as something strategic. And that is why there is a consensus on the position that we should have written agreements between the member states that are affected in order to deal with cross broader tracks. Now I would like to focus on some key issues from a transport point of view.
CEF is a key tool, a funding tool that the EU has in order to support projects of common interest with a high added value in the transport sector. There are two goals: first of all, to finish the 10 T corridors with a priority of the cross-border areas, and then to have a true intelligent trans-European network, which is multimodal, safe, and decarbonized. I know that there's a lot here, a lot in the mix, but we have to achieve all of this if we want to be truly ambitious. And then we also want to bolster democratic accountability, protecting the role of the European Parliament throughout the whole legislative procedure, and making sure that we look at eligibility criteria and award criteria. We need more flexibility, yes, but we mustn't be arbitrary or too discretionary.
No. We have to recognize the strategic importance of ports, the specific needs of outermost regions, and the importance of improving accessibility across the EU. This project also supports defense and security mobility. It has a dual approach, and CEF promotes synergy between transport and energy. It takes a holistic and comprehensive approach based on the autonomy and sovereignty of infrastructure in the EU.
To wrap up, let me say that it's vital that we have a clear focus on all the European funding instruments, so that we have synergies and that everything dovetails. I'm thinking about CEF, Global Europe, and the NRPPs. This is extremely important not only to develop, maintain, and protect critical infrastructure and strategic infrastructure in the EU. We have tried to make sure that this proposal also includes proposals that have been coming in over the last few weeks. And of course, it will be a pleasure to listen to your comments, and we'll continue working hand in glove to make the necessary improvements so that we can have a better draft in a few weeks' time.
So heartfelt thanks to all those of you who have helped us and been working with us. Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
And thank you very much. Before I give the floor now to the shadow reporters, the regi reporters for opinion, Miss Antonella Sberna kindly asked to exceptionally intervene now since she has to leave. So for two minutes, Miss Berna, the floor is yours.
Antonella Sberna
Thank you. Chair, I will speak Italian. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'll be brief, but I felt very strongly about this, and I wanted to thank the Transport Committee and the relevant teams for this.
I'd like to thank those in the Reggie Committee that unanimously voted to back the opinion that we're delivering. Through this opinion, we would like to tell you about certain points of view in the Reggie Committee. Of course, we know that you are the lead committee. This is a very important file for the future of Europe, especially at this critical moment. Both co-rapporteurs have talked about this.
But I think it's important to mention this unanimous vote in Reggio. We have voted on four key aspects. First of all, infrastructure has dovetails with cohesion. It's in urban areas and in other more far-flung areas. And when I say far-flung, I'm thinking about the role of SEF because we have to make sure that the corridors are interoperable.
Now the description here is very clear. From an energy point of view, interconnections are very important. Energy interconnectivity is of vital importance. Now on co-funding, we wanted to increase the figures, which were rather stingy, I would say. I don't think the commission was very generous.
I think we have to be very realistic. So, yes, of course, it would have been very easy to put everything back to 100%. We didn't do that, but 85% is our proposal. And we really wanted to say that local and regional authorities play a very important role on interconnections. There were the words synergy and interconnection.
These were buzzwords that were mentioned, and they're very important. And I hope that the work that we've been done will be taken on board, because I think that this can really help the regions that we represent. Thank you very much for this opportunity, and good luck with your work.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
You. Now we'll go ahead, and I'll give the floor to the shadow reporters from both committees, in order of the groups. Also, for the maximum of two minutes each, we start with EPP Tran, Martin Kemp.
Martine Kemp
Honorable Chair, your colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for the presentation and also for their draft report. Today, we are discussing the future of Connect in Europe facility. This program is not only about improving our transport infrastructure, but also about strengthening Europe's resilience, security, and competitiveness. CEF3 must rise to meet the challenges of our time. Therefore, we need, even having in mind the ambitious proposition by the commission, we even need a stronger budget.
Without an increase for transport, military mobility, and energy, we risk falling short of our ambitions. Our networks are the backbone of the single market, but also a matter of strategic security. The Trans European transport network must function seamlessly without cross-border bottlenecks. It must be more.
Martine Kemp
Interoperable, multimodal, and decarbonized. It must also be secure and resilient, capable of withstanding both physical and cyber threats. At the same time, we must fully embrace the concept of dual-use infrastructure. Our transport networks must serve both civilian and military needs. This is why it would be important to have clear budgets for transport and military mobility.
Clarity in funding is essential to avoid under- or overfunding one or the other priorities. The prioritization of projects of common interest with a cross border dimension should also include ports, railroad terminals, airport connections, and so on. These are concrete investments that strengthen cohesion and bring Europe closer together. Furthermore, we must accelerate the development of our European high-speed railway network, connecting our capitals and metropolitan regions. This is essential for sustainability, competitiveness, and territorial cohesion.
We must also be honest about the implementation gap we currently face, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors report. For our economy, competitiveness, and security, it is essential that we complete the core Tanti network. So finally, we must guarantee predictability, continuity, and a clear programming framework for the entire period. So colleagues, SAPS 3 is more than a funding instrument. It's a strategic tool for a stronger, more connected, and more secure Europe.
So I'm looking forward to our cooperation. Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. Next, S and D Itcher, Janis Maniattis.
Yannis Maniatis
Thank you very much, Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank the co-rapporteurs for the draft report they've just presented. This draft report includes very important points that are going in the right direction. It recognizes the importance of interconnections to stop the fragmentation of the energy market. It looks at the challenges of climate change and geopolitical challenges, and their link to infrastructure.
And it also wants to get rid of the issues regarding renewable energy sources and disparities there. And then it talks about the importance of the European Parliament and its role in these projects. However, I feel they're trying to widen the scope to focus on investment in infrastructure that isn't important from an energy point of view. And I think that there's a lot of money going to these projects. Despite this increase of the budget, the resources we have at our disposal are not very generous, especially when it comes to electricity.
At the same time, hydrogen and carbon storage open new markets in the EU, and we need to provide funding in order to support them if we want this to become a reality. The Connecting Europe Facility's main role is to fund projects that have a cross-border impact, trying to deal with the weaknesses in the market by leveraging more investment. If I can put it differently, our program is called the Connecting Europe Facility. It's not called the Protecting Europe Facility. It's Connecting Europe.
So I don't think the EP should widen the scope of SEV, making sure there is an operational link with TENT. Then a priority has to be cross-border connections, including domestic networks and electricity storage. And last but not least, we need to make sure that the European Parliament is involved in drawing up these work programmes.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.