Committee on Transport and Tourism 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
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsThank you. Thank you very much.
Esther Herranz García
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank the reporter, Madam Serenno Sierra, for this draft opinion that we've just heard all about. However, as we've said on previous occasions in different committees, the real problem is the budgetary architecture, which will be influencing the next generation funds going forward, and this is concerning a great deal of us. The court of auditors has made it very clear that merging these different policies with different goals and time frames, using indicators which are not harmonized, will make the assessment and audit of the funds very tricky indeed and will also make it hard to support priorities, which cover all sectors. There will be too much flexibility given to member state governments when it comes to drawing up their national funds national plans.
We want to prioritize projects, but not one region over another. This really undermines the raison d'être of the EU and funds such as CAP. Now I think Madam Serrano's text is a great starting point. So there are a lot of.
of it which I can support. I agree with, and I will, however, be tabling some amendments, for example,
On the role of regional and local authorities in multilevel governance. We need to improve connectivity in regions which already have connectivity problems, such as remote areas, rural areas, underpopulated areas, as well as islands, which suffer from tricky or non-existent connections.
Then.
Esther Herranz García
The core work should be concluded by 2030, extended core work in 2040. This should allow for the possibility of having dual use for civilian and military purposes. This is something we have to look at, and we want to look at improving competitiveness and working conditions, which are crucial for our economy. We believe this should remain the heart of the cohesion policy. And given the current geopolitical backdrop, we think we need to reduce our energy dependency on third countries.
We're trying to decarbonize our own society, especially the transport sector, and this becomes particularly pertinent. Now, we have to be consistent in our approach. We have to look at our industry's capacity. Also, look at our fleet of vehicles, as well as our social needs. We have to move towards a technical neutrality, which means diversifying beyond electric vehicles.
Looking at the funding co-funding for transport, I don't think this is now the time for discuss. We have to look at the figures across the board.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
I have the request to respect the time. For the patriots, any colleague? No. We go to Mrs. Beata Zidlow from the ACR. Two minutes, I repeat.
Thank you very much.
Beata Szydło
Thank you very much, chair. Ladies and gentlemen, well, the ECR group that I'm representing here does appreciate certain proposals by the European Commission. At the same time, we see a lot of problems and issues with this proposal. First of all, because we're talking about a totally new approach to the EU budget. This is not a simple and straightforward budgetary reform.
This is a fundamental modification of the way of managing our resources, which is based on centralization, and it takes away the power of decision-making powers from regions and local authorities. We do appreciate the strengthening of the security and defense aspect. It is also good that we are working, we're focusing more on external borders. This is a step in the right direction. But the issues that we see include a total lack of investment in infrastructure related to transport.
There are no obligatory amounts for the transport sector. At the same time, we are very strongly promoting the so-called green mobility. And we believe that considering the current geopolitical situation and given the status of energy transformation in Europe, we should not treat decarbonization as a priority task. Third, cohesion funds should, first of all, be used to finance the so-called hard infrastructure, that is railroad and other similar projects. We should not allow for a situation in which key projects such as TNT would be dependent on mechanisms that are so far not really specified.
And we're talking transport poverty, which might turn into a huge problem. So, of course, we will propose our own amendments. Thank you very much.
Mister Benoit Casar, two minutes.
Thank.
Benoit Cassart
Thank you very much to madam Serrano for the proposal on the draft opinion on national and regional partnerships. It's a very good basis for our work. The commission is marking a significant departure in how the budget is designed and implemented. By grouping a number of different programs in a single national envelope, this new configuration strengthens this idea of national priorities to the detriment of a more sectoral approach at European level. It can be seen as a type of implicit renationalization because it reintroduces this idea of national priorities in a framework that is supposed to strengthen solidarity and cohesion at the EU level.
I understand that the EU faces certain challenges and that greater flexibility is needed for them, and that this will help to redirect resources at times of crisis. But this flexibility has a very high price because it puts policies in competition with one another. So that means that the final share of funding between the main policy areas like agriculture, cohesion, and social policy will be in competition. The NRPP strength underlines cohesion, but it means that we are undermining democratic scrutiny and European unity. We're seeing that there'll be greater competition within NRPPs to implement this cohesion.
I have some particular concerns. The 10 t networks are a concern, decarbonization, particularly through technological neutrality, rural and urban mobility, respect of the principle of additional resources, the principle of how powers are shared between national, regional, and local authorities, adapting national infrastructure to military priorities, administrative streamlining, and sustainable tourism. Thank you very much.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you. I would like to start by thanking the reporter for this very, yeah, for her draft opinion as a very solid basis for the negotiations. I think there's several elements we strongly welcome. First, the draft gives transport and transport infrastructure a clearer place in the NRPPs, which is important because transport is not just another investment area.
It's essential for cohesion, territorial accessibility, and the functioning of the internal market. And we also welcome the link with the completion of the TNT network, including the 2030, 2040, 2050 deadlines. These deadlines will only be credible if they are reflected in national and regional investment planning. Finally, we also welcome the recognition that the NRPPs and the CEF must work together. So that brings me to my first priority.
That is the complementarity with the connecting group facility. The CEF must remain the main instrument for cross-border transport infrastructure with high European added value, but it cannot finance everything. So the NRPPs should therefore support the national and regional parts that make European corridors work in practice: access routes, urban nodes, multimodal hubs, freight terminals, last mile connections, and domestic bottlenecks. So these two instruments in the end must work hand in hand if we are serious about completing the 10 t. Second priority is to make sure transport is clearly visible in the plans and also adequately funded.
In such a broad instrument, there's a real risk that transport becomes diluted among many competing objectives. We therefore need clear references to rail, regional and urban public transport, multimodal connectivity, interoperability, safety, resilience, and accessibility. And our third priority is governance. Transport priorities must be identified early, together with those who have the expertise on the ground. So regions, cities, transport authorities, and relevant stakeholders.
And their involvement should not be a box-ticking exercise, but part of the preparation, monitoring, and evaluation of the plans. So we are ready to work constructively on this draft with the objective of making the NRPPs a real tool for completing the 10t and supporting sustainable mobility across Europe. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. From the left, I don't see Mrs. Gillon. No. Mister Snorbosch, please.
Mister Snorbosch
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. And thank you also for mentioning that transport, of course, is at the core of the cohesion together with TNT and CF. Of course, we also welcome the allocation of 5% of the funds for sustainable tourism. By linking EU funding to the fulfillment of centrally defined milestones, the NRPP has the potential benefits of greater flexibility through unified national plans. However, we advocate significant rebalancing, softer conditionality, greater national discretion in defining the benchmarks, and stricter limits to the commission to evaluate national proposals.
We think we believe that competent national authorities should be in the lead when it comes to deciding where, what, and how local, regional, national, and cross-border competitiveness can be improved while preserving cultural, industrial, and natural heritage. We see the application to this fund as too complex and demanding, especially for smaller member states. The fund increases the likelihood of missing funding due to technical non-compliance rather than substantial failure. And lastly, we want to make clear that there do no significant harm, objective will make effective interest infrastructure improvement even more difficult. How can we build infrastructure with an acceptable budget and in a timely manner when all six EU taxonomy criteria need to be fulfilled to comply with the principle of do no significant harm?
That is one of the main critique points that we will also show in our amendments. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Mr. Snorbuch. Any colleague want the floor for one minute? No. Now we give the floor to Miss Anna Basilio. Basilio.
Yes. Policy officer, multi-annual financial framework unit, directorate general for budget. Missus Basilio, for two minutes please. Thank you.
Ana Feu Basilio
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, honorable members. Thank you for the invitation to attend today's debate on this committee's draft opinion on the national and regional partnership plans. And thank you to the honorable member Serra Nocira for her work. The national and regional partnership plans will bring together EU funds implemented by member states and regions under one coherent strategy.
The proposal as such ensures predictable and stable support for all regions, farmers, vulnerable communities, transport stakeholders, of course, in full compliance with the partnership principle involving regions and local communities in its design and implementation. Implementation. Synergies and simplification are not at the expense of watering down support for specific policies, being cohesion, agriculture, or transport. As commissioner Seraphin said in the plenary of April, the key strength of the plans is that they are tailor-made. This does not mean that we are moving to a Europe à la carte.
The plans put European priorities and funds under one roof so they become easier to align with local needs, simpler to manage for national and regional authorities, and, crucially, deliver more powerfully when combined with our common union priorities. In this regard, we fully appreciate the report there is support for a coherent approach whereby transport policy is not treated in isolation, but is a cross-cutting enabler of cohesion, competitiveness, social inclusion, security, and so on. This is exactly what the plans aim to achieve, to create synergies between policies so that we can achieve more impact with every euro spent from the EU budget. Concretely, the plans allow member states and regions to tailor solutions adapted to their national and regional needs and challenges, instead of a one size fits all approach. At the same time, the proposal strengthened synergies between transport and other policies.
You mentioned them very well. Cohesion, social policy, and skills, competitiveness, rural areas, security, defense. Ensuring a faster and more flexible support, simplifying current rules, and reducing administrative costs at all levels. In this regard, fixing allocations upfront, as proposed in the draft opinion, would reduce our capacity to adapt our funding to the needs of member states and regions, which are very different, especially, for example, if we take the 10 team ups as a reference point. Knowing no earmarking does not mean that transport does not matter.
You've said it very well in this room today. There is no doubt that transport, which is the backbone of our single market, the backbone of cohesion, matters and will feature prominently in the plans, in particular, the completion of the 20. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Missus Basilio. And now Missus Serrano Sierra to conclude for two minutes, please.
Gracias. Thank.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
You, chair. Firstly, thank you very much indeed to all representatives of the political groups for their contributions. So I'm sure they will enrich the report considerably. And thank you to the commission for your contribution. As I said, we don't agree on the model, but with our contribution and with our responsibilities here in the transport committee, we have to continue to move forward, to set out our objectives and priorities.
As I said in my first intervention, we want to ensure that transport lies at the heart of the project going forward. We want to ensure that transport networks become a reality to bring Europe together, and make it more competitive. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, our reporter, for very good work. And, I have to.
Interrupt for.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
5 minutes. A few minutes' interrupt. Just, we have to wait for 5 minutes. Thank you very much. Take your seats, please.
We are now coming to the central item of today's discussion, our first structured dialogue this year with Commissioner Apostolos Dizi Costas. Dear Mister Commissioner, welcome. We are very happy to welcome you once more to our committee meeting. We sincerely appreciate your availability and frequent presence at our meetings. We invited you here today to discuss the port strategy and the industrial maritime strategy, which have been recently published.
As you know, Tron members are always interested in the commission's upcoming projects, and we would like to hear from you on this as well. Finally, we would be interested to hear your views on the current crisis in the Middle East and how it will affect European transport in the short and medium term. Dear commissioner, as usual, we have a lot of subject to discuss, and I will therefore give you the floor first for ten minutes, an extension to thirteen minutes. Then we will proceed with the first round of questions from the coordinators, for which you will have five minutes to reply. We will then give the floor to other members for a second round of questions.
You have the floor, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you very much.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Thank you very much, madam president, and thank you all of you for your understanding for my slight delay. The press conference I had earlier with the president of Bavaria was a bit longer than expected, a lot of questions. So, I thank you very much for inviting me again to be with you here at the European Parliament and discuss the issues that are of our key interest. And, of course, to give me the opportunity to update you on our recent policy initiatives in favor of transport and tourism, and to lay out what lies ahead. Of course, we have to all agree that a lot has changed, since I was last here.
The situation has even changed, I would say, since you asked me to come and present the new EU industrial maritime strategy and the EU port strategy. In fact, things are changing on a daily basis, as we speak. And shipping now is very much in the spotlight, although not for the reasons that we would all have wished. I don't need to go into what brought us to this point. We know the events of the last 2 months.
The result is that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed as we speak. About 20% of the energy consumed comes through this strait. So, of course, we have stocks. We have other suppliers and other supply routes, but operators and consumers are indeed getting nervous every day even more. And I fully understand that.
Life as we know it depends today on energy, essential services, manufacturing, deliveries, households, and, of course, transport. They all rely on fuel. And this is what makes the maritime sector so strategic for Europe, and everyone now understands, even the more skeptical, how important shipping is for our economy and our lives, and how important it is to have a maritime sector that is resilient, that is able to adapt, that's European owned. That is what guarantees our strategic autonomy. Not only our strategic autonomy, but that of other world regions as well. And this is why Europe matters.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the stakes are so high today. Now that the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the strategic importance of shipping is clear for everyone. Nobody would have wished the current crisis upon the global economy or the businesses and the citizens who are struggling with rising prices, but I'm heartened by the renewed commitment that I see to making the maritime sector more resilient. And this crisis is another wake-up call for Europe. We recognize now the need to strengthen our maritime sector and ports. Some time ago, but now it's very clear.
And so did you, the members of the European Parliament, because you were the ones who called for a comprehensive European port strategy back in January 2024. So in early March, the European Commission adopted the European industrial maritime strategy and the complementary port strategy. Our objective was clear, safeguard and strengthen our maritime manufacturing and shipping industries while accelerating innovation, digitalization, and decarbonization, and turning these into drivers of industrial opportunity. At the same time, we need ports that are competitive global trade hubs, lifelines for islands, coastal and outermost regions, and resilient pillars for our critical infrastructure. Ports are central to Europe's strategic autonomy and economic security in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment.
And these two strategies provide a clear direction. Let me briefly talk about the maritime strategy. You know that Europe has a very proud history of shipbuilding. We're leading the production of cruise ships, icebreakers, and many other sophisticated ship types. We have more than 300 shipyards in Europe, 28,000 equipment manufacturers.
However, the sector is increasingly exposed to intense global competition on top of the geopolitical tensions, and dependencies on third-country ship production and financing do not help either. Aggressive state-backed subsidies distort global shipping and the shipbuilding sector, supporting the weaponization of supply chains. And then there is the shadow fleet, which is ignoring, absolutely ignoring the international laws. Now asserting our sovereignty means supporting manufacturing. And in turn, this means supporting the digital transformation of our shipyards.
To get there, we will create an industrial maritime value-chain alliance. We will work more closely with industry by establishing an industrial maritime value chain alliance that will bring stakeholders from all the waterborne sectors as well as national and regional authorities on the same table. To strengthen the competitiveness of EU shipping, we will encourage vessels to choose EU flags, globally recognized for high safety and quality standards. Recent events in the Middle East have once again highlighted how resilience on important energy and fuels makes us vulnerable. So we must reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels.
For long-term resilience, we need to prioritize investment in sustainable maritime fuels that can be produced here in Europe. We
need
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
To ensure that our companies can access reliable and competitive prices on alternative fuels. And in this context, we welcome the outcome of the International Maritime Organization's 84th Maritime Environment Protection Committee meeting last week. The committee agreed to continue discussions at the next meeting in November, with a view to agreeing on a global framework to ensure the implementation of the IMO 2023 greenhouse gas strategy, and this is very important. We also welcome the additional interseasonal meeting planned for September 26, which will be an opportunity for the delegations to continue work on the guidelines and to consider how to address amendments of the net zero framework that could tackle legitimate concerns raised. The commission stands firmly behind this objective of global shipping reaching net zero emissions by 2050, and will continue working with all parties to secure the adoption of an ambitious global framework at the IMO.
These honorable members of the European Parliament, it is the only way if we want to get to a level playing field for shipping that would not hurt our competitiveness. Now, when it comes to ports, let me recall their central importance. They provide over 400000 jobs in Europe. They handle nearly three quarters of the EU external trade and almost 400000000 passengers per year. And they are strategic assets for trade, for energy, industry, and, of course, military mobility.
As global competition and security risks escalate, so does their vulnerability. With the Uport strategy, we will future-proof these gateways to Europe for the long term. Foreign investment is indeed welcome, but foreign ownership and control can have to come with security risks, especially where state-backed actors are involved. So we will develop criteria and guidance for member states, focusing on strategic dual-use ports, also to combat drug trafficking and organized crime. We are building on the work of the European Ports Alliance, and we will establish a framework for assessments in non-EU countries and rigorous background checks for port workers.
And we work very closely with Commissioner Brunner in this respect. And because modern threats are as likely to be digital as physical, we are also launching an EU-wide security risk assessment to identify and mitigate cyber risk vulnerabilities. On energy, ports are engines of free industrialization, so we will speed up the permit granting for strategic energy and environmental projects. In our upcoming electrification action plan, we'll tackle grid access. And I also want to encourage ports to think outside of traditional models, to consider diversifying the clean energy, digital, and blue tech services.
And, of course, investment is key for both the maritime sector and the ports. Ladies and gentlemen, you invited me here to talk not only about the maritime and port strategies, but also about the crisis in The Middle East, and more specifically, the EU actions to support the transport sector and all of its users. This week, we will adopt guidance to help the transport and tourism sector navigate potential future jet fuel shortages during the crisis, with a specific emphasis on the aviation sector, as you understand. It will clarify the flexibilities in applying our slot rules, push member states to use public service obligations for essential connections, and remind the entire sector of the EU's world-renowned passenger rights. This guidance was promised in the Accelerate EU Plan and will ensure that member states apply EU rules consistently.
Our guidance will come on the same day as safety information from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency on the use of jet A fuel, and it follows the commission's Middle East crisis temporary state aid framework adopted on April 29. The temporary framework allows member states to support inland waterway and intra-EU short sea shipping, as well as road and rail, as they deal with the rising fuel costs. The situation, honorable members of the European Parliament, remains volatile and uncertain, and collaboration between member states is key. So the commission will therefore convene a meeting of the network of transport contact points later this week. I want to be very clear with you.
As we speak, there is no evidence that there is a lack of supply of jet fuel. However, the situation is quite tight, and we need to be ready, and we are ready for all scenarios. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm confident that these strategies that we presented last month are not only addressing what the sector currently needs more, but are also reflecting the future challenges as well. Our two strategies guarantee the security, resilience, and the competitiveness of the maritime industry of Europe and of our ports. So I would like to thank you again for inviting me today to share these views, and I'm looking forward to your questions and to your ideas, just on time.
Yeah. Thank.
you. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
I agree. Just on time. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. Now we start our discussion. I will ask you in advance to respect the time, please.
And I give the floor to mister Gizikke for three minutes. Thank you.
Jens Gieseke
Yeah. Thank you very much, madam chair.
And thank you. Welcome, commissioner Titsikas, to our committee. In fact, you were a little late. However, if the reason was a press conference with the minister president of Bavaria, well, of course, that excuses you even though I'm not Bavarian. Now, of course, ports are very important.
They're an essential part of our infrastructure. It's our door to the world, and we've seen that in the analysis. However, they can only function well when they are well connected to the hinterland, and I think there are different approaches in member states. So my question is, where do you see the greatest deficiencies to strengthen the connection between the hinterland and the ports? And you were talking about the defensibility and military mobility.
Everywhere throughout Europe, also in my district, we were discussing, can you continue to expand port as, for example, the location of a naval base? And could you see more intensive cooperation with NATO, that we have a common approach for the future of our ports. We have good cooperation, but could it be improved? And also a question about foreign direct investment, ownership, and control. Of course, we have to keep control of our infrastructure, and we should continue to fight for the situation.
We don't have third countries taking over our ports. And the point you said about the shortage of aviation fuel and the allocation of slots, etcetera, I agree with what you said. However, I think the commission should be speaking with one voice, preferably your voice in the commission. Sometimes you hear other opinions within the College of Commissioners that express different points of view. So I think that one voice would be excellent.
Finally, this dialogue is entitled strategic, so we can't just limit it to maritime aspects and ports. So I have a request to you when we were talking about the revision of passenger rights. For the last 13 years, we've been doing this. And in the council, and of course, you guided the negotiations, but there's very great reluctance to meet the parliament on a few issues. So if we're not going to have a fifty-fifty, if we're going to have a forty-sixty from the council, please increase pressure on the member states that they move on their positions, because after thirteen years of negotiations, we don't wanna stand there without any results.
We wanna avoid that situation, and I exactly met the time allotted to me.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Mister Gizige, I think after three questions, mister commissioner will reply just not to extend the lot. So I give the floor directly to Mr. Danielson, please.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Cher. Also, welcome back to the commissioner. First, one question on maritime. The commissioner also touched upon the issue of ownership and flags. And, as you alluded to, we have a situation today with a significant share of the EU tonnage that are owned and controlled that are not flagged within the EU.
So my question is what concrete measures can the EU and its member states take to ensure that we have more EU flags, things that we have not done previously, that will make this ambition work this time. Secondly, coming back to the current situation that you started with and also the clear vulnerabilities that we have seen due to our dependence on fossil fuels and the current crisis. I had prepared two questions. The first one was on the short term, and the guidelines and what we can expect this week. You went through it quite well, I think.
So then perhaps my question is then instead on the more long-term game. Is there, and what is happening with this SAF early movers coalition? Is there any progress on this double auction pilot? Do we see something? Because after the short-term problems, we need to be less dependent on fossil fuels in the long term.
The third issue, question, favorite question from me. I put it first time when I was elected in 2019 to Commissioner Valian, and she promised a revision of the air service regulation fourth quarter 2020. And now I put the question to you several times in the hearings, and it was supposed to be before Christmas, first quarter, before summer. Now it's after the summer. Will we see the proposal of the air service regulation after summer and preferably '20 this year?
Then last point, not so much a question, but I would like to echo what Mr. Gieseke said. We know we are on a short time frame now to agree on air passenger rights. So precisely as my colleague said, just encourage you to continue and put more pressure on the member states because if we don't show more flexibility, more will to negotiate from the member states, there is a real risk that we will run out of time. And after 13 years, we will have no agreement on air passenger rights. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Danielson. Now, I don't see any colleague from the Patriots. And I give the floor to Mister Tituli for the ECR.
Thank.
Carlo Ciccioli
you. I'd like to start by thanking commissioner Tivicostas for the work he has done and the work he will do together with executive vice president Fito to bring forward a clear European strategy for this sector. Europe has to develop a strong policy. There has been times at which maritime transport seem to be considered less important because if you compared with terrestrial, train, aviation was more important. But now we see that it's key.
Three quarters of transport goes through there, millions of European citizens, billions worth in goods. But there are a number of problems. First of all, fuels. This is a serious problem. New fuels, alternative fuels, are something that all operators are following and are awaiting, as well as new technologies that go hand in hand with that and new port strategies that will support them.
ETS as well. ETS is leading to a number of competitive imbalances. The network needs to be corrected. We need to find new methods. We need to bring changes for the sector because otherwise the ETS is going to destroy competitiveness for Europe in this sector.
So we need to take a step back, that's one possibility, or look at structural solutions to protect our maritime industry. The current solutions haven't solved it. Secondly, digitalization. We hear a lot about reducing bureaucracy, simplification, a clear strategy, but we need to have effective legislation, and it has to be clear. Europe has to try to be in the lead, compared with other parts of the world.
Thirdly, port asset ownership is important. We are competing with China and Turkey in our ports, there is a serious competition. I'm referring specifically to Italy, but I know it's the same for Greece and for a number of other ports as well, where there is significant investment from these areas. So we have to get back our own property. When Trump came to office, one of the first things he did was take back ownership of the Panama Canal, was going to the Chinese.
Then also, when it comes to tenders in ports, we have to protect our own companies because otherwise, the competition will be unfair and our companies will be discriminated against and won't be able to keep up. So we have to create rules that won't discriminate against European operators. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Now, mister commissioner, for the first round, your comments. Thank you.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Yes. Thank you very much, and thank you, the three first speakers, for the very important questions that you raised. First of all, on the economic security, which you all three raised, I would like to say that you should know that we will give clear guidance to the EU member states. We recognize the influence of third countries as a major security risk. EU ports remain open to the much-needed investment.
There's no question about this, but this needs to be balanced with security safeguards. And that's exactly where we come in with our strategy. Guidance for investments in ports and a framework for mapping and monitoring foreign investments, building on the existing tools, of course, that we have: the foreign direct investment screening framework and the foreign subsidies regulation. On the cooperation with NATO, I will have to tell you that we are at a very good level of cooperation. It is with NATO that we agreed on the four military mobility corridors.
It is with NATO that we agreed the 500 hotspots in Europe that we need infrastructure upgrades for military mobility. It is with NATO that we collaborate on a daily basis. But, of course, now with the new geopolitical situation that we witness, we have to understand that we need to strengthen the military aspect of the European Union as well. But NATO is, of course, a major ally, and we would continue working with NATO. And we think that the results that we want to reach cannot be reached unless we have a very strong and good and comprehensive collaboration with NATO.
Now moving on to the passenger rights, thirteen years later, it's too much time. We are finally in the final very final mile for the agreement. We have been pressuring the council to accept most of the position that the parliament has and that the commission agrees with, and I will be doing this in the coming weeks. We have a good, working environment between the council, the commission, and the parliament for the passenger rights. For me, things are very clear.
There is a very distinct red line that we cannot cross, and that red line has to do with the fact that whatever we decide as passenger rights cannot be worse than what it is today for the passengers. It needs to be better and simpler. So we are working towards this direction. Of course, there are many issues that were bridged in the past weeks between the Parliament and the Council, and we facilitated this process. And there are certainly some left, but I remain positive and optimistic that we can reach an agreement before the end of the discussions.
Now on SAF early movers coalition, I want to tell you that we have good news. Why? Because on top of the members states that signed, I had last week in Cyprus several member states who didn't sign at first wanting to contribute and to enter this coalition. More than €2,000,000,000 from Germany and Luxembourg has been announced, which should lead to a pilot ESAF auction this year already. This way, can boost investments.
And, of course, we need to derisk the investment because you understand that if we don't do something to increase productivity, we will not be able to reach our goals. Now the air service regulation, Mister Danielson, you know very well that I'm a man of my word, and I told you that this will come. It was supposed to come indeed before the summer, but you always have to take into account the geopolitical situations and the priorities that have to shift a bit. The same goes with the tourism strategy. I want to announce to you today that, even though it was supposed to be announced before the summer, I think we have to move it to after the summer because the pressing matters of today do not allow us to prioritize general matters of tourism, but rather to focus on the issue of jet fuel flight cancellations and how we can facilitate and work with airports and passengers to cope with the crisis in The Middle East and the energy crisis this summer.
So we have to shift sometimes, but the air services regulation is coming after the summer. Doctor Ticcioli, on the ETS review, you know that it's coming in July, the ETS review. And, my goal is to find the right balance between the competitiveness of Europe, of shipping, and of the European Union, but also not so much the need to understand that the competitiveness goes hand in hand with our sovereignty. And our security goes hand in hand with energy autonomy. So you have to understand that the reduction of the CO2 emissions is not today only a matter that concerns the protection of the environment.
It concerns our strategic independence and our security. So we need to work in order to strike a balance, a good balance between competitiveness that should not be hurt. I agree with you 100%. And we will address issues such as carbon leakage to other ports as well, because it's not only the competitiveness of shipping, it's the competitiveness of our ports that have been in danger. But at the same time, see how we can make sure that Europe remains energy autonomous.
Yeah. I have to, let me see if I have another question that I didn't answer. Well, okay. We will come back to the yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Okay. We proceed with the rest of four coordinators. And then, mister commissioner will reply, and then I will give the floor to colleagues who asked for one minute, but after the answer of mister Jitsicosos of the commission. So for the renewal, madam Baljes.
Jeannette Baljeu
Thank you, and thank commissioner for your presentation and update. As for New York, we presented a position paper on the port strategy in the maritime industry. We support very much what you addressed. And it's important that we look closely to what are the new developments in the world, what happens in the world, and how we adjust the proposals towards that. You referred to the IMO meeting last week.
I was part of the EP delegation, and it was very interesting to see what all delegations really wanted to move forward. And the conclusions showed that we make little steps, but at least there was some positive outcome towards a net zero system, although it has to be negotiated, of course. The main questions that we got from the delegations were that we wouldn't double tax, and we wouldn't have a double system. And I think it's important that we acknowledge that shouldn't be the case because that was a hurdle that a lot of delegations discussed with us. So hopefully, you can react to that.
I think as parliament, we should really look for one solution in that sense, if there's a clear international regulation. When it comes to the strategy that you proposed and you gave an update on, maybe something on the defense and decarbonization side. When we look at the repair yards, which are still very active in Europe, I mean, we know a lot of the production is also outside Europe, but especially repair, and in some specialty yards, we have our own production sites as well. And when it comes to decarbonization in Vients, we see that the partnerships on the zero emission waterborne transport were a good initiative of public and private innovation. So is there a way that we can scale up the position?
Do you see any possibilities for that? And when it comes to security, we are looking also to, of course, sufficient military mobility investment, not only from rail and road, but also on the waterway system. So maybe you have some comments on that. When it comes to ports, you rightfully say that it's also energy hubs. So this is something that we really have to look into, how ports can, in that sense, protect themselves from growing threats of hybrid attacks and drones?
And are there any insights already on how we can work with the ports in building these capabilities? And when it comes to the energy side, we also have to look at the grid and permitting, and I think these are some of the topics that we are addressing in some other files as well. But, hopefully, we can find your support in that. So thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you. Missus Paulus for the Greens. Three minutes.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, commissioner, for being with us today. And, I know that we should refrain ourselves from the maritime import strategy, which I will not do as many of my colleagues also haven't. I think it's very good that you did address the energy crisis, which is, strictly speaking, a fossil fuel crisis. And therefore, we should see decarbonization, energy transition no longer as steps towards climate neutrality only, but also as steps towards energy sovereignty.
And I would like to have, I would have liked to see more vision in the port strategy when it comes to making our ports future proof with dedicated funding for decarbonization solutions, which could deliver by 2035 already, such as wind system propulsion, batteries, infrastructure for alternative fuels, mandatory sharing of data in order to optimize routing, and so forth. And when it comes to competitiveness, I mean, China has launched their first fully battery powered container ship for coastal service last month. Does anyone believe they will stop there? They will stop with one ship sailing the seas? Is this again a field where the EU already says, well, we lost the race, so China should just go on and we'll maybe follow?
So I think we should be much bolder in our approach to not lose another race again. And I found it quite concerning that in the industrial maritime strategy, there was instead a push to support nuclear power propulsion and commercial shipping. Even if nuclear were safe or were, economically viable, which it is not, there are certainly cheaper technologies. And also there, we have the open question: where does the fuel come from? Will we again import more uranium from Russia, from Kazakhstan?
Is that the way forward? Is that the way we want to go? What about waste? What about security issues? What about non-proliferation of nuclear material?
I think this poses more questions than answers, also when it comes to the safety of our workers on ships and imports. Something a bit related, the EU combined transport directive. I found out that it hasn't been really updated for more than 30 years now. So it's about as old as my oldest child. So when we speak about maritime transport, it's very clear that this transport is always dependent on combined transport, as most cities in the EU are not port cities, and the vast majority of goods and of people are transported further into the hinterland.
So my question is what is the commission's plan on this combined transport directive, which is stuck in negotiations and where I believe, I think, all my colleagues too, because I know that the coordinators have asked for it, that negotiations are pretty imminent to complete. Last but not least, on aviation and jet fuel. The commission is planning to give guidance to the airlines, which should be focusing on antitankering rules and alternative fuels. I'm not sure whether this is sufficient in this situation. I was asking whether you might also give guidance to the member states on how to deal with looming carriers in shortage, because not only Dan Jorgensen is concerned, but also Fatih Birol, head of International Energy Agency.
And I don't want to have a situation where military jets, where emergency helicopters have to stay grounded after private jets have taken up all the fuel. Thanks.
Merja Kyllönen
Dear chair, dear commissioner, I will stick to the issue as Finns do. Europe stands at a decisive moment. Our ports long seen as gateways for trade must now become engines of transformation. The European Union's new port strategy is an important step forward, I think, but its true value will only be realized if we connect it more ambitiously to Europe's broader goals, competitiveness, circular economy development, energy transition, and strategic autonomy. Ports are no longer just logistical nodes.
They are industrial ecosystems. They sit at the intersection of supply chains, energy systems, and regional economies. And if we treat them merely as infra, we miss their full, powerful potential. To strengthen Europe is Europe's competitiveness, our ports must evolve into innovation hubs. This means investing in digitalization, automation and smart logistics, but also ensuring that regulatory framework also enable rapid experimentation and scaling across borders.
A fragmented approach will only slow us down in a global place where speed and integration matter. At the same time, ports are uniquely positioned to accelerate the circular economy. They can become centers for material recovery, recycling, and reuse, linking industries that would otherwise remain disconnected. By embedding circular processes into port operations and surrounding industrial clusters, we can reduce waste, cut emissions, and create entirely new value chains. Energy is another critical dimension.
Europe's ambition for energy independence depends heavily on what happens in and around its ports. And I think this is strengthening the new role in the energy system. It's not just an environmental necessity. It is a geopolitical imperative. But none of this can happen in isolation.
The real breakthrough lies in cooperation that goes beyond administering boundaries across regions, sectors, and even national frameworks. And when boards collaborate with cities, industries, energy providers, research institutions, we unlock synergies that no single actor could achieve alone. Let me end with this. How do we ensure the transport sector does not operate in a silo, but instead actively facilitates and brings the entire ecosystem, industry, energy, innovation, and policy into this shared transformation, and also how we could keep those ports inside the financial scope, which are important for military mobility, but not inside the TEN network.
Thank you, Missus Skilanen. Mister Snorbosch, please.
Mister Snorbosch
Yeah. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, commissioner, for being here and for stressing the importance of our ports for our industry, for the infrastructure, and for the military. Coming from a region with not one but of two coastlines in Germany, I have to witness the decline of our shipyards and ports over the years. They are struggling under the weight of misguided policies and unfair competition from the Far East. Mister Giesecker can be very happy that we are still very on the top of building good cruise ships.
That is his federal state. But in my region, the shipyards have gone bankrupt or have been sold to third countries. So they are facing an existential crisis, and they cannot compete with heavily subsidized state-backed competitors from East Asia, while the EU continues to pile on new green deal costs, carbon taxes, and ESG reporting requirements and supply chain constraints. Furthermore, we must address the sell-out of our critical infrastructure. We have watched also in my area of Hamburg the sale of parts of our major port.
They are handed over to foreign state-owned giants. This is a direct threat to our sovereignty, and we need a policy that puts European interests first, protects our infrastructure from foreign state influence, and slashes the energy costs that are killing our maritime manufacturing. So, yes, we need a strategy, and thank you for that. Thank you for following up the wish of the parliament. We need studies.
Thank you also for that. We need initiative reports that we just agreed on this morning in this committee. But most of all, we need swift action and a clear focus on growth, on industrial resilience, on innovation. And this can only go hand in hand with affordable energy. And this, again, is not possible with the current EU policy.
So if you, dear commissioner, want to help our ports and our shipyards, please make yourself heard in the committee and put the Green Deal on the back burner and competitiveness first. You talked about finding a balance between both aspects. Of course, this is your task as a commissioner, but I think the time is very urgent to put competitiveness first. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. You have the floor now to answer, please.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Yes. Thank you. Well, I will try to be as quick as possible, because you raised many issues and very important issues. Now on the zero emission waterborne transport, want you to know that we are supporting the partnership. We gave out €184000000 in the period 2527 for this partnership.
And, of course, I aim to continue the support because it is indeed a very, very valuable partnership. Now on the financing of the ports, you know that we have the Connecting Europe Facility, the national and regional partnership plans, the European competitiveness funds that are highly relevant for ports investments. Of course, the strategy is not only announcing the different pots from where we can have the investment needed, but also, we are focusing on better coordination and leveraging existing instruments to attract private investment. And the European Investment Bank will also play a very important role here. On the combined transport directive, I want to be very clear with you that we have received the parliament's views on the draft laws, and we intend to withdraw as part of this year's commission.
We received your views on the draft laws, and the commission intends to withdraw them as part of this year's commission work program. We will now carefully assess the parliament's position before deciding on the next steps, and we expect to take a decision before autumn. In case of a confirmed withdrawal, the existing combined transport directive would remain in force. It would continue to apply as it is applied today, and the commission will oversee its proper implementation. Now on jet fuel prices and shortages, as we discussed earlier, we have, as of today, no signs of lack of jet fuel supply or of massive cancellations of flights due to supply shortages in the coming months.
After all, you should keep in mind that we have not only 70% of the production of jet fuels in Europe, but also from the 30% that we import on jet fuel, approximately half of it is from The Middle East. And at the same time, we have increased our imports from the US. So on top of that, we also have the emergency stocks, which, if needed, we will start distributing, but in an orderly and coordinated manner. That's why we have announced in last week that we are asking the member states to inform us specifically about what stocks they have and where. So having said that, the Accelerate EU communication that we presented also proposes measures to optimize the distribution among member states.
However, I want to be very clear. We have to be very careful about how we communicate. We do not want to create panic, because panic can bring the crisis much closer. So we have to avoid this spiral. And, therefore, we need to be ready, and I want to repeat myself by saying that we have all the possible scenarios, and we are trying to have responses for all kinds of possible events happening from now on that could affect the energy in Europe.
Having said that, I move to the next point on the IMO. I want to be very clear. I'm happy that you participated in the IMO meeting, and I want to be very clear about this. There cannot be a double burden. So once we agree at IMO level on a net zero framework that will put in place global measures creating a level playing field.
We have to adapt our EU policies in order to make sure that there is no double payment, double burden. I want to be very clear. This is my position. And I believe that it is in the interest of the European Union, it is in the interest of everyone to find a solution at the IMO, reach a global level playing field, and make the adaptation needed in the EU laws, of course. And this is easy because once we reach an agreement, we can revise relevant EU legislation, taking into consideration the global measures.
On shipyards and, on global competition, well, here, you know, we are trying to improve the global level playing field also by focusing on areas such as shipyards and the production of ships. We understand that Europe has a competitive advantage in the production of not simple ships, but of sophisticated high-tech ships. This is why 95% of cruise ships produced today are constructed today in Europe. So we have to invest there. Military mobility is also another very important aspect, with dual use ships and vessels that we can invest in because they are also high-tech.
And there we have the competitive advantage. We have not lost our competitiveness in this particular aspect of the sector. Of course, the strategy will also leverage public procurement and funding to support EU industrial leadership and economic security through targeted non-price and economic security criteria. We have the upcoming revision of the EU public procurement rules, and we have the recent industrial accelerator act that I told you about earlier in my intervention. And, of course, we have trade policy tools, which will be mobilized to help ensure fair competition with third countries, including export credits for ships.
And, of course, we will launch a structured dialogue with the EU maritime manufacturing industry to better detect and identify unfair trade practices in third countries. And.
this will.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Inform potential future trade measures that might need to be taken. I think I tried to cover most of the issues at hand.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Yes. Yes, Mr. Commissioner. Now, colleagues, we have eight speakers, but just strictly for one minute, please try to be brief. I will keep the order, of course. And I pass directly to madam Breu Calena from the EBP.
For one minute.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you, Jan, and thank you, Commissioner, for answering our questions. I have a few on the decarbonization of our fleet. Does the commission guarantee European financing for new vessels, but also for retrofitted vessels when appropriate? Secondly, the commission would like to encourage the avelli sector where we've passed the experimental stage now, and we're now looking at industrial production. And then the ETS, do you plan to encourage member states to commit 100% to the maritime ETSU decarbonization of the maritime sector?
And then a comment. Thank you for not forgetting the competitiveness of small and medium-sized ports because it's part of the strategy. You said you were going to use existing financing and channel that to small and medium ports, but I think we should try and simplify the process when it comes to the administrative steps to access these funds. Thank you.
Yeah. Well,
François Kalfon
Thank you for your questions, colleagues. And commissioner, thank you for your answers. We can see, as this parliament goes on, the more we talk about naval strategy, then we talk about dual use. You talked about that. And we talk about taking back control of strategic infrastructure and ports.
As a Greek, you know you're familiar with this topic. And, of course, this is all against a very complex geopolitical background. So my question is, is it the tie, is it now the time to put an end to investments from third states, potentially hostile in our ports? These could be risky. And more specifically, the screening mechanism for foreign investment in the industrial accelerator, should this not also be expanded to the ports?
I've only got 5 seconds. I won't ask anything about the aviation sector.
François Kalfon
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner, for your presentation. European ports are vital to our economy and our security, and they are the gateways for our trade, and play a crucial role in our resilience. If our ports are disrupted, Europe is disrupted.
Speaker 38
So I have a question. For the continuity of our import and export flows, it is essential that the operational side of our ports remains in European hands. However, in the current proposal, we still lack concrete steps on how to achieve this in practice. While the strengthening of FDI screening is a positive step, what concrete actions will the commission take to ensure that operational control remains with European actors, and how will you address the risks linked to already existing foreign investments in our ports? Thank you.
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
Thank you, commissioner. Well, of course, you know that we want ports to be included in the maritime strategy, not just because of their trade importance, but also their critical hubs when it comes to security and energy as well. But many ports cannot move on with electrification, not just because there's a lack of capacity on the networks, but because they encounter obstacles when it comes to using the energy, which has been generated locally. And, we have been told from the sector that it's important for electrification to be seen not as an isolated project, but as part of a system where we have renewable energy, storage, and then digital management as well. All of this has to be tackled together, although, of course, they can be developed separately, and they can also be financed in different ways as well.
Now for the decarbonization of our transport and for competitiveness, our ports and industry, we have a question whether these have been included as part of the energy community under the European port strategy. Thank you.
Vicent Marzà Ibáñez
you. My colleagues have said this very well, particularly Juta Ballos. We need to have ambitious decarbonization goals. We have to be strategic, and we can't fall into the trap of looking at energy sources that are only going to make us even more dependent on the outside world. So we need to focus on electrification and make progress in the decarbonization.
So having said this, you spoke a lot about strategic autonomy of our forces and a real policy of autonomy for our ports. But nobody here who has spoken has asked any questions about the workers or their representatives. So I'd like to know your opinion about the fact that there's no relevant or sufficient consultation about the principles adopted by port workers. Port workers don't see the commission's attitude towards them as being respectful. If you're going to speak to them, you have to be, it has to be an efficient, effective dialogue.
Thank.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
You, chair. Thank you, commissioner, and thank you for your comments. So we share your concerns. We need to modernize European ports, especially when it comes to digitalization and the energy transition, but these transformations need to go hand in hand with clear commitments. And I have two questions for you related to employment.
The first, how can the commission ensure that these modernization processes result in high-quality jobs and good conditions for port workers? And secondly, what mechanisms do you envisage to ensure a true social dialogue and effective participation of workers in the new port strategy? Thank you.
Thank you. Maria Zaharia.
Maria Zacharia
Commissioner, in the text on competitiveness on the concerning parts, I've looked at that, but it's not really a strategy. Rather, it's a trans transformation into a geopolitical institution. But I'm sorry. These ports are economic units. They're not necessarily part of the military, and you have simply left the employees and workers at ports completely outside of this discussion.
These are the people who keep the ports alive. What they need is flexibility. They, when you're talking about automizing everything, well, that doesn't mean socializing this, rather a continuation without workers councils and social dialogue. And that means that this you're ignoring the social policy aspect.
Vivien Costanzo
Thank you. You see, we have so many things to discuss. Maybe you should join us more often, but I want to switch to German. I
Don't know whether Marcus Zoda was a good enough reason to turn up late to our meeting, but nevertheless, I have three particular questions now. Firstly, you talked about a lack of kerosene. My question is, what approach is the commission taking? What possible solutions? Secondly, we talked about passenger rights.
Next week, we would have this proposal on ticketing. Are you optimistic? Do you think this will go as you planned? And thirdly, we're all talking about the future in Europe and the future of the automotive industry. We talked about the automotive package.
And for me, it's important to for us to develop a European future, not an Asian future, a European future for the sector. If we want this, then we have to find a solution together using political methods. And my plea would be for a political solution, and to do that, we'd need your support. And I know I need to keep it short, but I think this is something where we really do need to find a political compromise. Thank you.
Daniel Attard
Thank you, commissioner. We appreciate your time. Regarding the combined transport directive, I wanted to ask whether you have any feedback from the Council side. You have heard from the com from the parliament, but what about the council? And regarding the tourism strategy, I just wanted to refer to the vote in the last plenary, which received strong backing.
So it would be good to have a constructive conversation, while the strategy is being formulated. Thank you.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Thank you very much. Many important issues raised, indeed. And I will start with the workers because it was mentioned several times, from members of the European parliament who took the floor. And I want to be very clear. The commission remains committed to the social dialogue.
We consult with social partners through European-level frameworks like the pact for European social dialogue or through wider consultations to ensure stakeholders remain involved in policy development. The strategy that I presented to you today, even though I didn't mention this part because I couldn't, I didn't have the time to address all the different issues, but this strategy focuses on initiatives for upskilling, reskilling the workers, for safety at work, in close cooperation with social partners, drawing on the pact for skills and the quality jobs road map. And this approach supports workforce resilience without imposing binding measures, and should also contribute to making our port sector more attractive to women and young people. You have to understand, jobs in the maritime sector and in the ports that in the past were dangerous or not attractive are not anymore the case. We have jobs that are attractive with new technologies coming in, with new regulations that make sure that safety issues are addressed.
So my effort, our effort, is to bring young people and women, especially, but overall the workforce into the sector. And for me, on a personal note, I consider the part where people are involved as to be the most important part. So, on the passenger package, when will it be adopted? I think it's gonna come soon, of course. I'm fully dedicated to enhancing the passenger experience in multimodal travel.
You should know, as you said, next Wednesday. I am proud to tell you that we will present the single ticketing regulation, which will be a game changer, multimodal travel, single ticketing, passenger rights covered. It's going to be a real game-changer for transport in Europe. Stay tuned because next Wednesday, something big is happening in the transport sector, and I think you will agree with me that it's a long-awaited initiative. Now, of course, we are planning complementary regulations for booking and ticketing systems.
You will see them coming. And I propose a targeted revision of the rail passenger rights regulation to cover rights for journeys involving several rail operators, which will be the case after this proposal. Now how do we support the energy transition and the industry decarbonization through the strategy? Accelerating port electrification and onshore power supply is a very important aspect of our strategy through the electrification action plan and through the strong encouragement to member states, through facilitating grid connection and energy system integration, the grids package, and better alignment with the TEN-T, through the supporting of the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure in line with the alternative fuel infrastructure regulation, the fuel EU maritime and the EU emissions trading system, but also through strengthening ports as clean industrial ecosystems, because this is our goal, including offshore wind, hydrogen, cooperation with industrial clusters. Now on foreign investments in ports because it keeps coming up with your questions.
As I said, we will provide guidance to member states specifically on ports, focusing on critical infrastructure, strategic dual use ports. And on the ETS revenues, I totally agree with you. We need to make sure that the member states understand that the money from the ETS has to return to the sector. We cannot use this money for other reasons, but, unfortunately, we see that member states do not return this money to the sector to make the transition a reality. So, yes, indeed, the entire industrial maritime strategy encourages member states to channel ETS revenues towards maritime decarbonization. A potential EU mechanism providing ETS allowances directly to shipping companies in a dedicated maritime call under the innovation fund in '27 may also be examined.
Now because the combined transport directive came back again, I will repeat that at this stage, the commission has proposed to withdraw the proposal, but we have not yet decided to do so. So the decision is gonna come in the coming months. Still on combined trough travel directive, that you asked me, the council did not object to the intended withdrawal. But as the European Parliament did, the commission will take into account the arguments raised by the European Parliament and your committee, madam, president, when taking a decision. Okay?
I think, again, I tried to cover everything under the time you gave me, madam president, and I hope that I covered most of the questions asked.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you for being with us one more time in our committee meeting and for your very interesting presentation and the discussion we have had. And we wish to call you to invite you soon one more time for matters pertaining to tourism this time. Thank you very much.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
It is my pleasure, and I want to thank all of you for your questions, for your invitation. You should know it's always a pleasure for me to be with you here. Being a former member of the par national parliament, I value a lot our discussions, and I know that it helps a lot.
The governor.
Apóstolos Tzitzikóstas
Yes. It helps a lot to shape our policies. So, please feel free to know that I'm at your disposal anytime. It's my pleasure. It's not an obligation for me to be here.
It's a pleasure. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Colleagues, we have to continue, please. Take your seats, please. Let's now move on to the next agenda item, which is the presentation of ECA's special report on sustainable community commuting, sorry, around the urban areas. Urban mobility in the EU affects approximately 75% of the population, a figure that continues to rise, making sustainability in urban areas an essential priority. The European Court of Auditors evaluated the steps taken by the commission and national authorities to promote sustainable transport for computer commute commuters in major metropolitan areas.
This included renewing legislation, the design and implementation of sustainable urban mobility plans, and the monitoring of relevant EU-funded projects in the field. I'm happy to welcome mister Manfredi Salvaggi who will present to us the outcome of the assessment and, I hope, some recommendations for future action. Okay. From there. Then, mister Salvaji, I will first give you the floor for 8 minutes, please.
And then the tran coordinators will have two minutes to ask their question. And following the round of questions, I will give the floor back to you, and you will have 5 minutes to reply. After that, I will then open the floor if some members want to take the floor. So you have the floor, Mr. Silvaldi, for eight minutes. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
It's okay with.
Thank you.
Carlo Alberto Manfredi Selvaggi
Thank you, Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor for me to be presenting to this trunk committee our latest report on sustainable community. Next slide, please. First of all, why did we look into this area? Across the EU, three out of four people live in urban areas.
These cities drive our economy, but they also generate high levels of commuter traffic. Outbound congestion alone costs around €180,000,000,000 every year, not to mention the impact on air quality and CO2 emissions. In fact, urban transport accounts for 25% of the total CO2 emissions from transport. The issue of commuting is clearly a pressing challenge for the EU. Next slide.
Sustainable urban mobility provides a clear way forward. Less congestion, faster, and more reliable travel options, and lower emissions. All of these elements contribute to a better quality of life for all. To achieve this, cities need to promote and provide attractive alternatives to private cars. This is where sustainable urban mobility planning takes center stage and becomes a powerful tool.
Urban mobility is primarily a local responsibility, and new action must respect the principle of subsidiarity, where local issues are decided at local level. The commission does not dictate what has to be featured in urban mobility plans. Instead, it sets the framework and provides guidance and financial support. The amount of EU funding is substantial. Since 2014, more than €35,000,000,000 have been allocated through coalition policy funds, complemented more recently by €23,000,000,000 from the recovery and resilience facility, and additional support from the connecting Europe facility.
Next slide, please. So what do we cover in the audit, and what is our main conclusion? Our audit focused on three main areas. Firstly, the commission's legislative policy and support actions. Secondly, mobility plans in six cities, namely Prague, Seville, Lille, Budapest, Katowice, and Lisbon.
And thirdly, 21 new funded projects. Next slide. Overall, we conclude that the EU's legal framework on urban mobility has been enhanced by the commission's sustained efforts. Notably, it now requires sustainable urban mobility plans to be prepared for 43 urban areas. However, we identified various shortcomings that undermine the plan's effectiveness, particularly in relation to their coverage of commuter flows and the level of ambition in changing travel habits away from car use.
Future improvements will primarily depend on action at the local level. Next slide. Looking at our findings more in detail, we noted that while the EU legal framework has been strengthened, reaching consensus took time, and urban mobility objectives remain broad. Citi's value, the commission support, although they also called for better coordination and fewer overlaps. Next slide.
Moving to the seed disability plans. One of the key issues we identified relates to their geographical scope. Many plants stop at administrative borders, and fail to cover all relevant commuter flows. This limits their effectiveness, and often stems from weak coordination between the neighboring municipalities. Next slide.
Content-wise, most plans focus on improving accessibility to public transport and reducing emissions, while measures to actively discourage driving are less common. Both types of measure are necessary to achieve sustainable mobility. Restricting the number of parking spaces or access to the city center without providing adequate public transport is not a viable solution. But even once alternatives to private cars are in place, cities still have to change travel behavior and habits. Another key issue is the fact that most plans did not include information on whether funding was available for planned investment.
As you can imagine, sufficient funding is essential for success. Moreover, none of the national or regional authorities monitor the implementation of Zoom. As a result, the member states are not in a position to determine whether the plans will achieve their intended outcomes. To assess the situation on the ground, we selected, based on commuter flows, a point of origin in the commuting zone of each of the sample urban areas. We then analyzed the area that could be reached within 45 minutes by public transport, car, or bicycle.
We found that cars could reach many more areas even in rush hours with congestion. Next slide. When it comes to the audit project, most of them, such as tramlines and multimodal hubs, delivered the planned outputs. However, fewer projects resulted in significant improvements for commuters, often due to an inadequate needs analysis or a lack of coordination between neighboring municipalities. Examples include an underused park and ride facility or a cycling path which comes to an average end when it reaches the edge of the city.
We also found significant shortcomings in how emission savings are calculated. They were often not based on justified assumptions. Next slide. To tackle these issues, we recommend that the commission strengthen its support to the member states. This includes creating a single information point and providing additional guidance on land use planning, shared mobility in suburban areas, such as car sharing or bike sharing, and the geographical coverage of mobility plans.
We recommend developing a common model share indicator and a robust methodology to measure emission savings. The commission should also encourage mobility plans to cover all relevant commuter flows. Last slide. Thank you for your attention. We are more than happy to address any questions you might have.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Now we start our discussion, our debate. I don't see Mr. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Ricci. You will speak on behalf of Mr. Danielson.
Okay. Just let me ask for the EPP. No. There's no, yes, Mr. Ricci. You have the floor on behalf of the EPP?
Okay. You have the floor. Thank you. Thank.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Thank you very much indeed, chair, and thank you for that presentation. I think it's going to be a very useful study, especially for those working in the transport ministry in France. So thank you very much indeed. As you said, we share the same goals. All our towns and cities are looking at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and working out how to undertake the transition, and to encourage citizens to leave their cars at home to travel into the center.
It's not easy in all towns and cities. We have areas where citizens have to take the car to work. So we have to take a more global approach. Jobs, services, and mobility all come together. You said €35,000,000,000 would be provided in finance, resilience fund, fusion funds, projects within the different cities. I'd be interested to hear the selection criteria for these projects.
Which projects will be selected and financed in the cities that you mentioned? Furthermore, on the drop in emissions, you'll be aware that ambition in the EU is looking at the decarbonization of the bus fleet across the EU. Perhaps we are being too ambitious here, especially because we talked about the industry a short while ago. In Europe, do we currently have European businesses who are able to build fully electric buses and coaches? So those are my questions for you today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Galanek. Mr Ricci.
Matteo Ricci
And we have such traffic jams that people end up spending exceeding amounts of time in their cars. I was a mayor for ten years, and I think this is something that concerns all mayors. The things that are working well, of course, you have to see what they are based on the municipality. And, of course, when it doesn't function well, then, of course, the opposite is true. So you have to really learn from other cities where things are working well, and where there are deficiencies.
You have to see what can be overcome. How are we going to do that, especially with intermodality? This is something we've discussed quite often in this committee. The center of a city, of course, is really the main focus of intermodality. That's where you're, that's the point you're trying to reach.
But still, there are other things that we need to discuss. For example, long-distance trains. So when we're talking about urban mobility, we're talking about citizens. Citizens want to know how do I get there the fastest way, which form of transport is the fastest, the most comfortable, the least expensive. Those are things that win elections, that determine elections, those kinds of considerations.
So right now, cars are used a lot because we have better infrastructure for cars. And some people feel that this used to be the slowest, while now is the most rapid. So what we have to do is really work to have urban mobility projects which are well financed and well-tuned. So question, what works best, what works least in the cities you looked at? Please.
Carlo Ciccioli
Thank you, chair.
And, of course, I'd also like to thank Mr. Salvati for his report. I think it's coming at the right time, and it's very clear. I have a couple of points to make. We generally tend to state principles, but when we state principles, they have to then need to projects. So when it comes to urban management and urban zones, we have this a 180,000,000,000 cost, and there are communes and the areas are links.
Of course, the links between the network are an aspect that we have to look at because if networks aren't connected and everyone has their own network, it doesn't work. So we need to have proper planning and proper implementation. And then on parking, which are not in the right places, we need to be able to create proper car parking spaces near transport hubs that would allow people to have short journeys up to the point at which they can take another mode of transport depending on speed, comfort, price, and so on?
Thank.
Vicent Marzà Ibáñez
You, Chair, and thank you to the representative for the study carried out, because I think that focusing on what's most important here for urban mobility and the importance of investing our funds correctly. I mean, this is public money after all. I think this is particularly pertinent now. So thank you for your hard work and your conclusions. Some of our colleagues have already raised the questions that I had, but I did want to highlight one figure that you said congestion in urban areas costs us €180,000,000,000 a year. So every liter of diesel or kerosene that we burn in a traffic jam is another area of vulnerability for Europe.
And when it comes to protecting the environment or the public health, I mean, that's another question once again. So we have to look at how much in terms of fossil fuels is burnt in congestion as well, and then strategic autonomy in our day to day economy as well, because if this affects our citizens. That said, we've seen that public transport, whether it's a free, reliable investment in the sector, that's one of the best ways of improving mobility. And bike lanes and cycling infrastructure are equally important too. I think that the timing is still, my previous speaker said it's not three minutes for me. So what I was saying was that have you looked at the impacts in different metropolitan areas?
It seems you have. So my question is, there are cities who are getting rid of bike lanes which were built using European public funds. And this completely runs counter to the generalized conclusions of how to improve urban mobility. Then how do you view free public transport and the impact that this can have on urban congestion and the public investment there? Because we're talking about a little bit more public investment, we could make all public transport free, because the infrastructure has already been provided as a subsidy.
Thank you.
I think.
François Kalfon
Madam chair, thank you, and thank you for the report from the court of auditors. Today, daily mobility is something that's not focused on in EU transport policy. We focus a lot on cross-border transport, and that's good. That's what Europe is for. But if we want to really see the green deal come to life, then we need to ensure mobility that is in line with their income.
Just some figures. 75% of the inhabitants of the EU live in cities. To see real decarbonization, we need a specific budgetary line focused on urban mobility, which isn't the case currently. So my question is simple. Without this kind of funding, how is the court planning to ensure that we can finance small electric cars for short journeys or to link up Toulouse or Lyon or big European cattle capitals, or to ensure that the European fleet moves towards biofuels or electric.
The EU has to be greener, but transport policy has to be able to focus on workers and those of modest incomes.
Merci. Madam Constanzo.
Vivien Costanzo
Thank you. The report describes ambition goals in the urban mobility plans, and my question would be, how can we make sure the already very limited budgets of the local governments do not prevent reaching these goals? And second, rising transport mobility costs can lead to transport poverty in many areas. At the same time, high housing prices are forcing many people out of the cities. So how can mobility plans be linked with strategies for affordable housing?
I was on time.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Very brief. Thank you. So before I give back the floor to mister Salvaggi, I will ask from the European Commission for three minutes, mister Axel Volkeri. He's the head of unit innovation and urban mobility unit. You are here, sir?
Yes. For three minutes. Thank you very much.
Axel Volkery
Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to give the view of the commission. From DG Move side, we welcome this report from the European Court of Auditors. I think it is pointing to a number of right lessons learned on which we have been working over the past months and years. And it's a priority for us to improve the effectiveness of sustainable urban mobility planning within and around the cities. That is very clear.
And, I mean, we heard it also from the interventions from the different members of this committee that, of course, every city is unique, every city is special, but all these cities have a particular similar function to perform, particularly when we look at the TNT network in ensuring that sort of the first mile, last mile connection and the good sustainable flow of mobility in cities is there. And for that, I think it was also that under the revision of the TNT regulation, the court legislator agreed on the 4 31 urban notes. I think, we agree with much of what the European Court of Auditors has been assessing and providing in its report. I think from our point of view, if you want to hear what we will do next, and this links to some of the recommendations that have been made here, we are working on updating guidance for cities and particularly to consolidate relevant information for public authorities in cities. You know that the commissioner is working on the city's web portal, that we're working on a new consolidated platform to provide cities with more information on support instruments, particularly for the next multi-annual financial framework.
We are very close after a long discussion procedure with member states to prepare an implementing act setting out a list of urban mobility indicators for the Tinti urban nodes. And this is very important because it will give us sort of a coherent information base on urban mobility, on which we can draw the lessons that were requested here in the discussion. And this will also include an exercise to collect information about the territorial coverage of the sustainable urban mobility plans, because one of the points, and we agree with that very much from the ECA, was that sort of the plans are not necessarily always sort of coherent with the actual commuting flows because they are linked to the administrative boundaries. And I think this is something we are working on with our expert group. So in that sense, let me conclude by thanking you again for this insightful report.
And I think much of what we are doing at present is very much aligned with what the ECA is recommending. Many thanks.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
We thank you very much, Mister Volkeri. Now, Mister Silvaldi, you have the floor to conclude, sir. Thank you very much.
Carlo Alberto Manfredi Selvaggi
Thank you very much, and thank you to all the MPs for the relevant and interesting question that they asked. First of all, about the criteria of selection of the project, I have to say that we selected urban areas according to several criteria, such as their total population and proportion of the population living in suburban areas, the funding allocated to projects contributing to urban mobility, and the modal share, which is the percentage of trips to work done by car covering both good and less good performance. About what worked and what didn't in the audited cities. First of all, we found that the measures led to improving accessibility and reducing transport emission worked well in the cities, but measures to actively discourage car use were less common. And we know very well that both types of measures are necessary to achieve sustainable mobility.
Another shortcoming that we found is that it relates to the geographical scope because many plants stop at administrative borders and face to cover all relevant commuter. And in the end, the last weakness is about the monitoring because we found that monitoring was insufficient, and there is no guarantee that the measures included in the plans are implemented that actually improve commuters' life. Regarding the parking near the hub of the public transport, we, again, we wrote in the, in the audit, it's about model share. This is the solution to improve the commuting sustainable and the cost. €180,000,000,000, I said in the first part of my speech.
We have to say that it's not all about money, because the behavior of the European citizen is very, very important. But, of course, money is important, and that's why commission founded many projects, to reduce gas emissions, to improve sustainability, in commuters, transport, and so on. About the city that are destroying the cycle part, this is not in our audit. The Sanford cities are not in that category, and so we can look for other assembly city, but not in this audit. Another important question is about free, public transport.
We are in Luxembourg as ECA, so we know very well what free public transport means. But we have to say that in the cities we visited, public transport was relatively affordable with special rates for certain demographic groups or poorer citizens. So even if public transport was not free, the cost was not generally perceived as a major challenge. So the problem is not the public transport free or with payment, because measures to improve public transport accessibility, affordability are important and necessary, but not always sufficient. Measures to change travel habits away from cars are also crucial, but less frequent in mobility plans, as I said before.
Last one regarding affordable housing and the connection with the objectives of the sustainable on commuting. It is a very good question, and maybe it's a good idea for another report, another audit from Mecca. I think more or less to have answered to all the question.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Salvaggi, for such a holistic analysis and approach. I'm convinced it will help the EU and national authorities to improve their efforts on sustainable mobility throughout the union. So we are looking forward to further exchanges with the European Court of Auditors. Thank you one more time.
So now, dear colleagues, let's move on to the next agenda point, which concerns the presentation of a study on investing in transport in the new MFF. This study was commissioned by the policy department at the request of our committee and prepared by Blommi and Sans. The objectives of this study are to provide an evidence based assessment on the value for money of EU transport investments in the 2028, 2034 new multi annual financial framework, to analyze the value for money for the different types of transport investments foreseen in the new MFF with a focus on the connecting Europe facility with a view to qualify the value for money of transport investments, the overall benefits they bring to European economy, and, where possible, the cost of not making such transport investments, to analyze the interactions of the different sources of MFF funding, to assess how value for money for transport investments could be maximized, and to assess the mechanism in the MFF proposal, allowing for review and flexibility in the implementation of transport investments, assess their foreseeable functioning, and consider the develop different pay pathways for allowing flexibility while also allowing real scrutiny.
I am therefore pleased to welcome doctor Jose Papi and missus Friedrich Kuhln, transport policy experts, and the presentation of the study will take ten to twelve minutes and will be followed by a debate allowing the members to ask questions, which will be answered by both experts. Welcome, madam Pearl. Welcome, sir. Hello? Thank you.
I pass directly the floor to Monsieur Papi.
Alixpeter, thank you very much.
Jose PAPI
Perfect. So thank you very much for allowing us to introduce the findings of this study we have been conducting over the last five months. Next slide, please. In it, you will see what are the different sections of the study. I think the study is already in your hands.
So we will follow a structure of the presentation that basically meets these sections in the same order. So starting next slide with the objectives of the study. Madam Terre has already introduced them. So basically, it's to take a look at what has happened with transport investments in the previous programming period, and then basically to look at what is the proposal or the proposals that are said of the European Commission in these regards. And, with a very serious analysis on what it comes to the flexibility mechanisms that are allowed in the five proposals, and also the possibilities of having these instruments interact with each other.
Finally, and we will focus in our presentation mostly on this, we will go into a number of recommendations that we want to put forward this committee. Next slide.
Friederike KUHLN
I will just briefly present to you the findings of the previous programming period or the current programming period. As you all know, it's a multilayer mix of grants and loans, EIB loans. We have found that the blending of these different fundings is, in general, underused. And as you might all be aware, the self transport focuses more on the European scale, while the cohesion funds focus more on the regional or urban projects. And I think we can move to the next slide.
Thank you. The main challenges we have identified from the current period is that there is oversubscription to the funds, so there's not enough funding available. There's also some imbalances between regional capacities and the different instruments, cost overruns in some projects, and the limited ability to assess the impact of the projects accurately. The lessons we have learned from this is that we need better coordination. We need more accurate and sharper indicators, better blending, and urban regional governance.
Speaker 70
We can move to the next slide. Yeah. Moving to the upcoming MFF. And what we know about it is that more or less the structure remains the same. There is a blend of loans and grants.
Friederike KUHLN
The self transport will be increased, which I think was also in the interest of the parliament. The cohesion funds will be slightly reshuffled under the new architecture. And what is new will be there will be a new Horizon Europe successor, of course, but also the competitiveness fund will be a new instrument that will be introduced. We see that we can expect, in general, I think we can move to the next slide. Yes.
Thank you. We expect very large volumes for these funds in general. However, we have noticed that there is no dedicated budget available for transport yet within them, which could be.
a possible.
Jose PAPI
In section four of the study, basically, we have taken a look at the value for money that we observe in previous transport investments funded by the European Union in the previous programming period. What we have acknowledged is that there's, yes, there's a number of indicators that are used, but they have not been used in a uniform manner across the different instruments. So, basically, the methodology that we have followed and we have ended proposing to you six categories of investments. So you can take a look at the six different types of transport investments that we have created this taxonomy for you in the study. We have basically done it in a qualitative manner, taking a look at existing CVA studies, macroeconomic studies, let's say, the history that we have behind us.
So, obviously, there are projects that we might recommend in the category as something interesting, but that they have not performed well. This obviously can happen. But to have an indicative range, a very broad one, we could speak of 1.5 to 3 points in terms of benefit cost ratio as a reasonable return on investment, as a reasonable value for money for EU investments in the field of transport. There are two interesting studies that were commissioned by DG Move in 2015 and 2018 that we also take stock of. And there, we analyze the cost of non-investment.
What would happen if we don't accomplish the completion of the TNT by 2030? Next slide, please. So, basically, the interaction between the different sources of funding, we have all this detail. But let's say there's a bright side and a dark side. It's a great opportunity.
And at the same time, if things are not done correctly, we could fall in a number of problems. The problems that we could fall, they are obviously indicated in the study. We talk about overlaps between programs, geographical imbalances, underuse of blending as it has occurred in this programming period, a centralization of the new national and regional partnership plans under the interest of the capitals, rather under the interest of the European, the European project, administrative complexity in administrations that don't have the capacity to understand such a complex architecture and navigate easily in this architecture. Obviously, when I go to the recommendations, I will present the crucial factors that we believe should be activated from the European Parliament, in our humble opinion, in order to make this possible. Next slide.
Thank you very much. When it comes to flexibility, flexibilities by design are incorporated into the five proposals of the European Commission. And, of course, this brings something interesting, and this is, again, the bright side of it. The bright side of it is that, of course, there's an adaptability to geopolitical shocks, to change in priorities that you might have as legislators or that the member states might have. So that is an interesting angle to it.
But at the same time, there's a number of weaknesses if we don't navigate this flexibility in an adequate manner. What are these weaknesses? Obviously, for the large project, they need predictability. They need to know that the money is coming because we are engaging in extremely important investment. We believe that the European Parliament, this is our expert opinion, should take a more important role in overseeing what is the implementation of the different instruments.
We believe, as I mentioned earlier, that small actors might find it difficult to navigate across all this complexity. This might be a problem. Next slide. This is the core part of the presentation. I'm going to focus there.
What are the recommendations that we humbly present for your consideration? They are justified in the study, so we invite you to go to these chapters and go over them. So first of all, we believe that ZEP transport is adequately presented, to become the backbone of EU transport, really to receive the funding for those projects that are of EU interest and that the capitals might stop, because they don't have a very clear national interest per se. Second, we believe that this new instrument, the national and regional partnership plans, by now we have to learn the name, they are also a very interesting instrument because if used in an adequate manner, they could basically move out all those low value projects that have been funded in the past, sometimes in cohesion projects. The or is on Europe's successor is not a mystery.
We suppose that it's going to work in a similar manner, to which it has worked, in the past. But it's true that European Competitiveness Fund, there's a degree of surprise here because there's a pointing towards transport, but there's not a clear dedicated band to transport to very clear priorities. So this is something that we need to see how it will work. I mentioned earlier, my colleague also, that loans and guarantees, they should focus not on projects that have not worked well in the other instruments, but rather on projects that might have difficulties today, but have the capacity, have the potential to bring nice returns on the table in the future. Something that we have highlighted, and I will go over that later, is the importance to understand that we need outcome indicators, indicators that measure the result, not output indicators that are measuring how many kilometers of an infrastructure we have built, how many euros we have spent, but rather what is the result after we build this infrastructure.
Is this as of the socioeconomic impact? Are we creating employment? Are we, for instance, decreasing the minutes, you know, in certain logistics crossings? You know? Something that can measure the real impact of the investment.
Also, we believe it's very important upstream today that there's a very clear structuring of these instruments between each other. If we know this now, we will not make mistakes over 7 years. Next slide, please. When it comes to governance, I already mentioned, we believe that what the European Commission has proposed with the performance regulation is very valuable, but we believe it stays a little bit shy. From an expert perspective, we believe that it might be better that there's an effort dedicated to having these result-oriented indicators and incorporated in the annex of the proposal.
We believe that the flexibility, instead of being completely open, is what we could have is bands. Like, at least 20% of the investment should go to this type of projects, 40% should go to these other type of projects. This is something that we recommend. We even dare to propose a transport flexibility window rather than to stay open, you know, with investments and not knowing what is going to happen. The capacity building fundamental, we believe that the midterm reviews, that they are also by design in the commission proposals, could be used in a smarter manner.
We even hint at some possibilities in the study on how the parliament could take a more active and stronger role in it. So you have them there. And next slide, please. At the end of the day, we believe that stronger participation of the European Parliament together with these outcome indicators could enhance the whole implementation of all the instruments. I think the study has an annex that is quite interesting, Annex one, that is covering all the different articles in which one can basically consider the different types of transport investments.
Annex two is considering the flexibility and review possibilities. And there are some creative suggestions that we have for you in the study that we invite you to read. And now, of course, madam chair, we give the floor back to you, and thank you for the opportunity.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
We thank you both for your presentation, and we'll start the debate with the coordinators or on behalf of them from the political groups. We start with Missus Kalenic from the EPP. Thank you. Two minutes, please. Thank you.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Very much indeed, Jean, and thank you for the presentation of this very interesting study. It arrives just at the right time because, as you know, we are working on the 2028, 2034 budget right now. So thank you for that. I have a couple of questions for the representative commission as well. In the report, you said that we should focus on cross-border projects, corridor projects, and dual-use projects of substantial impact.
So, will the commission be following this recommendation? Similarly, in the report, you talk about the loans granted under Invest EU by the EIB, which focus on revenue-generating projects or those which represent a higher risk, such as terminals, rolling stock, and innovative technology. So these subsidies are accessible for projects which represent a high economic interest, but there will be a limited amount of funding available. So that's logical. Yes.
But that leads me to my second question. Does the commission plan to stick to this recommendation? Thank you.
you, chair.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
And thank you to the reporters as well. The study does reflect a concern that already exists in this Parliament, which is the risk of renationalization of the EU budget. In transport, this could undermine the interoperability of the network, particularly in the less well connected regions. However, I would like to focus on an interesting conclusion, which is that we need better investment. So this needs better coordination, as you said, between instruments, guidelines focusing on connectivity, territorial cohesion.
So I have a number of questions in light of this. How can we avoid greater flexibility leading to greater fragmentation in investments? Secondly, what type of mechanisms exist or could be created to ensure more effective coordination between funds? And with capacity limits in some member states and regions, how can we ensure coherent integration of goals such as resilience, decarbonization, and security in selecting and running projects, particularly when we don't have basic indicators and guidelines? Thank you.
Carlo Ciccioli
Listened very carefully to your presentation of the report. However, I do have to say there are no clear lines on funding. You refer to a number of areas, but I don't think there's a clear policy on the choices that will have to be made to invest in the different plans. So I think it's a work in progress, and we'll see in the upcoming statements and communications about commission policies whether there's more clarity on financing and whether it will be less costly than what's been done in the past.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. For the renewal? Yes, please. Thank you so much. I'll
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
Be speaking Spanish. Now you said it was important to restrict and make very clear what can be funded under the competitiveness fund with National Reserves, with the CEF, and under each of the different programs. I think it's become clear whether we're reporters or shadows in any of the MFF discussions. At the moment, we're getting in amendments from the rail sector, for example, who are raising doubts about whether investments that they have or want to have will be affected or fall into the competitiveness fund. So I don't know if you are planning on going a little bit more into what the limitations are here, because there are doubts.
I mean, the MEPs have doubts themselves, as do the sectors who want to plan for projects in the medium to long term.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you, first of all, for that study. Very interesting and also useful for our work in Trane. If anything, I would just have wished to receive it earlier so that we could have let our amendments be guided by it more. So there are several elements that I strongly welcome.
First, the study confirms self transport as the EU level backbone for strategic transport investment, especially for cross-border corridor on core 10t projects. And it also rightly warns against the dilution of transport priorities inside those broader envelopes. Second, I welcome the logic on complementarity between SEF and the NRPPs. SEF for the European cross-border projects and the NRPPs for the national regional last mile investments that make the network then work in practice. And third, the emphasis on ERTMS and rail digitalization is very important as one of the areas where EU-level intervention is clearly needed and justified.
And finally, well, I also strongly welcome the warning on flexibility. Flexibility is necessary, but it must not become open-ended fungibility. So I think that's clear. I have three questions for you. First, on the performance regulation.
Could you maybe explain a little bit more in detail why the horizontal framework is necessary, and why transport-specific indicators should complement it rather than replace it? Then second, on technical assistance, how do we design it so that it helps weaker administrations prepare major 10t and rail projects instead of simply rewarding those with already strong capacities? And third, the study sees a useful role for the ECF in supporting the industrial capacity behind transport technologies, including ERTMS and FRMCS. How can we make sure the ECF actively contributes to these transport prior to priorities in complementarity to the CEF? Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Is any colleague from the left or for the ESN? No? Now I will give back the floor to our guests, our speakers for six minutes, please, to answer questions and for your remarks, closing remarks. Thank you.
Jose PAPI
Thank you very much, madam chair. Well, basically, I am trying to amalgamate all the answers together, if you allow me. One of the mysterious instruments, obviously, is the European Competitiveness Fund. It is conceived for cross-cutting projects that do not fit clearly in the other instruments. Let's say we see clearly where we will use safe transport.
We see that the national interest, with a feeding into the European interest, stays in cohesion. But there's this kind of project that is a mixture between transport and industry. Let's imagine charging points all over a nation, etc. This is the kind of project alternative fuel capacity. This is the kind of project that is industrial, is transport at the same time, and this is the kind of project that should go there.
But as you have highlighted, it's very important that upstream today, we already know how to structure all these funds. By design, and to answer, madam Serrano Sierra, there's something interesting. It's the fact that we will have one single national and regional partnership plan is very good because it imposes, let's say, now the necessity to plan and program today. We need to plan and program today, and this is interesting because instead of I'm gonna formulate in a very colloquial way. Instead of trying SEF, if it doesn't work, I go to the capital.
If it doesn't work, then I go to Luxembourg to see what happens. We can create something much more structured from the beginning. This is the idea. So this flexibility can work well because we actually need to draft the national and regional partnership plans. No?
Also, the eligibility criteria, what we need to help the administrations is basically in defining what goes where or what kind of project, what goes to what type of instrument. This is something that we are strongly recommended to do now. So now we will have, as our Steam colleague mentioned there, a cross-border project. Okay. This is a classical SEF.
We put it there. ER TMS that you mentioned, etcetera. But immediately, we have, I don't know, the amelioration of a ring road that requires an amelioration in the safety conditions. This is an acquisition project. But if you want the charging points, that goes to the ECF.
And what we need is that the administrations take this job now into consideration. And this has not been done before. Also, keep in mind that the very parliament will be participating in an annual steering group in which you might have the possibility of criticizing, of offering your opinion, etcetera. We even recommend that if this became a trilateral process, it would offer the parliament much more muscle. No?
There are several options that we hinder. So your participation in this annual steering is stronger or more decisive, let's say, over the process. Other factors that for us, it should be important is maybe that they are coordinated calls. It is something we recommend in point 5.3 of the study. Unfortunately, we are sorry you have not received it earlier.
But, we invite you humbly, of course, to have a look at it. And, of course, if there's any question that you might have, please feel free to submit questions to the secretary, and we will address them, at your service. So no problem with that. But in 5.3, we also highlight this. We could have common calls for projects in which we are defining this phase, this segment, this part of the investment goes here, this part of the investment goes there.
So that's another recommendation that we have. Also, we believe that we have conducted 12 semi-structured interviews, not only with the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors, but also with civil society. And we believe that a dialogue with the stakeholder groups, you know, above all when it comes to last-mile projects, is very important. It's very important, and they should be invited to these midterm reviews, to these annual steering committees. Like this.
You could hear from the ground what is happening, if the projects are working well, if they are not working well, etc. There's a number of recipes that we suggest in the study. Of course, it's a short time we have, but please take a look at the study. Any question why we dare to offer certain recommendations, please address our esteemed colleagues in the secretariat, and we will immediately answer you. I don't know, Frederic, if I have forgotten something.
No. I think you've commented.
Jose PAPI
I've covered. It's a very large study, and we also invite you to take a look at the figures. We have made an effort to try to estimate the figures that are going to be invested per topic. Again, ECF is a mystery. I have received the question, and it's natural.
I asked this question myself. And, we, I remember even arguing with my colleague, Frederique, yesterday, saying, Jose, but we cannot write tens of billions. What is tens of billions? You have to offer a figure. So, but we don't know the figure.
So what we are suggesting, obviously, is that there are bands, that there's a better, probably structuring by design of the fund from the very beginning, so we can know, okay, this can go to charging points. This can go to this other type of decarbonization investment, etc. So we can know it from the beginning. So to sum up, I have 10 seconds. Flexibility, yes, it's fantastic, but please use bands.
Our humble recommendation is use bands. Use let's say, put some borders to the field, a little bit of borders to the field, when this defining, you know, where the investments will come in the future. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
We thank you very much, dear speakers, dear guests, both for your expertise, for your insight. We believe it will be very helpful for our committee's work on the upcoming MFF. Thank you once again. Now, dear colleagues, we move to our last point of today's agenda, which is the consideration of the draft opinion to badge and count on the budget expenditure tracking and performance framework. Please be reminded that the commission proposal is included in the package for the next MFF.
It aims to create a single system for tracking EU spending and performance instead of the current mix of program-specific rules. Our reporter for this opinion is Mister Guy Tegidov from the Greens. I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for November at 12. So let's move on to our discussion. Mister Tegidov, you have the floor, sir, for three minutes.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you. The performance regulation is the first attempt to put climate tracking, do no significant harm, performance indicators reporting, and elevations into one horizontal regulation. That is a major change up until now. These rules were scattered across sector-specific programs.
For transport, this means that the investments financed through CEF, the ECF, or the NRPPs will now be counted and assessed under the same common framework, instead of only through separate program-specific lenses. That was, in the past, a point of criticism, and so we support the logic of the proposal. A single harmonized system can reduce fragmentation, make reporting more comparable, and give Parliament a clearer picture of what EU spending actually delivers. And precisely because this is the first attempt, we should not pretend that everything is perfect. Some parts need to be corrected.
Our draft opinion is not about reopening the whole regulation. It is focused on a few points to improve it and reduce the risk of unclear. First, on the indicators. If the same indicators are supposed to be used across the whole EU budget, the commission must explain clearly how they should be applied and come up with technical guidance. Otherwise, we simplify on paper, but actually create confusion in practice.
Second, the annex is necessary because without it, there is no common tracking system across the entire MFF, but it must also be credible. So where a coefficient or indicator does not reflect the real purpose of an investment, we propose targeted corrections. Third, on the do no significant harm, we support having one single guidance instead of different interpretations in every program and fund, but this guidance must come early, be simple, and avoid creating extra uncertainty for project promoters. I understand that some colleagues are considering deleting the do harm article or the annex one in total. Of course, we will wait to see the amendments and assess them carefully, but I would already say that deleting annex one from the trend opinion would not necessarily delete it from the regulation by the lead committees.
It could simply mean that Tran does not provide the sectoral expertise on a highly technical annex that is very relevant to transport. So this expertise has especially also been asked for by the batch and the contractor. So I think for us, that would just be a missed opportunity. So having this said, I'm interested in the interventions by the colleagues. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. So we start our debate. First, Mister Gizige has the floor for two minutes, please.
Jens Gieseke
Thank you very much, chair. And, on behalf of Mister Jimenez Larras, I would first like to apologize for his absence today, as he has commitments in Spain and could not be with us today. I'm speaking on his behalf and will briefly present the position of the EPP group. And first of all, thank you to the rapporteur, Tegatof, for the report. Let me start by saying that the EPP supports the overall objective of this proposal: improving transparency, accountability, and ensuring that EU spending delivers real results.
However, this framework must remain practical, proportionate, and focused on simplification. We should not create new layers of bureaucracy in the name of simplification. In that respect, we believe the draft opinion moves too far away from what should be the core purpose of this file. On article five, our position is clear. We do not support this provision.
The DNSHA, the do not significant harm principle, has already been mentioned by the rapporteur, and already exists elsewhere in EU legislation. Repeating it here adds complexity and creates uncertainty, while giving too much room for future commission guidance. On article eight, we are also cautious about expanding delegated powers and relying excessively on future guidance from the Commission. On Annex one, we are concerned by the excessive level of detail. The framework should be simpler and easier to implement for member states and beneficiaries.
On Annex three, we do not support increasing the connecting your facility climate target from 70 to 80%. So CEF must remain flexible to finance strategic priorities, including military mobility. In short, we will work constructively and table amendments to bring this opinion back to a simpler and more realistic approach. Thank you.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Sher. First, also thank you to the rapporteur for the work done so far. As we already can hear, the performance regulation is raising a lot of discussion, and some important parts are perhaps even being called into question. So first, on a general note from the S and D group, we are supportive of the direction the commission is going here, because the question for us is not only how much we spend, but how well we spend it and how we ensure accountability. And we believe that the performance regulation could be central to that, especially also when we have a tendency for a more flexible budget, we can also then ensure common standards as they do no significant harm that are essential to guarantee that EU funds remain transparent, effective and aligned with EU priorities.
So with that said, there are, of course, room for improvement. So you will have amendments being submitted also from the S and D groups. For example, we need to make sure that some intervention fields are clarified, such as the important intervention field of military mobility. We also need, from our group perspective, to improve the indicator for the social aspect of transport, as well as we believe there is somewhat of a blank spot concerning social spending. And perhaps most importantly, and also to underline our support for the approach presented by the rapporteur, as the Trend Committee, we need to make adaptation to the NX-one, where we have more than 50 intervention fields that are related to transport.
And it is important that we give this input. And I think if we fail to agree on some of the broader political issues in relation to the performance framework, I think it would be sensible to leave some of these issues to the main committees and make sure that we give strong input on the specific trend issues also in the annex from the trend committee. Think if we prioritize this, I hope we can find a broad majority to form an opinion that focuses on the specific trend-related issues. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Mr. Danielson. From the Patriots, no. From ECR, no. From renew, Mr. Šarec.
Marjan Šarec
Thank you, chair, colleagues. A more transparent and performant EU budget is not just desirable, it's necessary. Citizens rightly expect us to show clearly how EU funds are spent and what results they deliver, especially in key sectors such as transport. For us, this proposal is particularly relevant. EU transport policy relies heavily on EU funding, whether for infrastructure, decarbonization, or innovation.
A simpler and more coherent performance framework can help ensure that these investments deliver real impact, better connectivity, greener mobility, and stronger competitiveness across the Union. I would particularly like to highlight several elements that we strongly support. The move towards a single harmonized system of indicators is an important step forward, as it should improve competitive comparability across programs and strengthen our ability to assess results. The effort to reduce administrative burden is also welcome, especially for smaller stakeholders and companies that often face disproportionate challenges in accessing new funding. Finally, the creation of a single access point for funding opportunities has the potential to significantly improve transparency and make EU funds more accessible.
At the same time, we need to ensure that simplification is real, not only formal. There is a clear risk that new horizontal requirements and reporting structures could, in practice, create additional complexity for beneficiaries. This is particularly relevant in the transport sector, where projects are often large scale, cross-border, and technically complex. We should also ensure that the framework leaves sufficient flexibility for sector-specific needs. Transport investments differ significantly from rail infrastructure to urban mobility, and the one-size-fits-all approach to indicators may not always capture their real impact.
For these reasons, I intend to table a number of targeted amendments. This will focus in particular on ensuring genuine simplification and the real reduction of administrative burden, safeguarding flexibility for sector specific programs, and improving the clarity and usability of performance indicators. In conclusion, this proposal is a step in the right direction. If we manage to strike the right balance between harmonization and flexibility, this framework can become a strong tool to improve the effectiveness of EU spending. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Does any other colleague want to take the floor? Okay. Now I will give the floor to the European Commission, to mister Daniel Roskamp, policy officer, chief economist, and coordinator unit directorate general for budget for two minutes, please, sir.
Daniel Rosskamp
Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members of the Trend Committee, and thank you for your draft opinion on the performance regulation. The commission appreciates, of course, the various points made today on the performance regulation. Addressing the opinion tabled by the rapporteur, we especially want to address the effective promotion of rights of people with disabilities. The commission remains fully committed to these, naturally. We do want to maintain, however, the alignment with the financial regulations' wording where feasible and appropriate.
This qualifier, we consider necessary since it accounts for the technical and disproportionate legal constraint that could otherwise be encountered when retrofitting legacy infrastructure across the Union. Finally, moving on to the climate and environmental spending. We note the proposed increase of the target of CEF to 80% from 70%. Here, we would like to stress that, of course, we CEF can go beyond the proposed 70% of the commission. However, we also would consider that we want to ensure that CEF can finance other crucial priorities wherever necessary, and would recommend remaining with the proposed 70% target.
On the do no significant harm principle, our priority is to provide a single, simple guidance document that minimizes administrative burden for all beneficiaries. We will and we must ensure that the guidance is also ready in time for when the next MFF comes into force. For this reason, we have already included the proposed publication date of the guidance on 01/01/2027 in the recital. And we would caution against adding this in an article, which may not come into effect until after this date, if the guidance, sorry, if the regulation is not adopted in time for this. Finally, we, of course, also note the comments made on Annex one, the intervention fields and indicators, and the coefficients.
We believe that the coefficients, indicators and intervention have been chosen to deliver a maximum amount of effectiveness and tracking wherever possible. We would like to welcome further continued cooperation with the train committee, and, of course, want to ensure a resilient and sustainably funded transport network within the EU. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. And now, Mister Tegidov, the concluding remarks of yours.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. First of all, thank you for all the colleagues and commission for the feedback and also the announced amendments. I think we are very well in a position to find common ground on many of those topics. From the exchange, I also understand that there are concerns about the do no significant harm and the annex one. I think on the do no significant harm, as also mentioned by the colleague from the commission, the performance regulation aims for a single guidance to make the implementation actually easier.
So, I hope we'll also be able to make sure there are no misunderstandings between us in the further process. I also want to reiterate what I said earlier that the Annex one is, yeah, an important part and no Annex one in our opinion. Doesn't mean that there will not be an annex one in the final report. We're just giving away the chance that the budget and quant rapporteurs have been asked for giving our sector specific input on that very technical annex, which is relevant for the performance regulation in the end in total. So I'm looking forward to receiving your amendments in the coming week, and then starting the constructive discussion on it in detail very soon.
Thank you, and have a nice evening.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
We thank you very much, Guy, for the very good work. So now, dear colleagues, we have come to the end of our committee meeting for today. Please note our next meeting will take place in March. No. Yes.
June 3. And I warmly thank you very much, the participants, interpreters, ushers, and technicians, and I wish you all a very nice evening. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.