31 May, 2023

Utilisation of EU funds for the transformation of the transport sector

Authors

Márton Vargha, Andrzej Ancygier

Download publication

Download citation

Possible sources of EU funding

There are several key sources to fund the transformation of the transport sector. While each is focusing on a different aspect of EU policy, all of them may be partly applicable to transport projects:

The EU’s cohesion funds dedicate a significant part of the budget to reducing disparities between Member States, which can be leveraged to reduce transport disparities.
The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), is the channel through which the European Commission directly supports transport projects.
Interreg aims to develop European Territorial Cooperation.
The Recovery and Resilience Fund (RRF) is a recent mechanism intended to reduce the burden of the economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and which includes significant funding.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) gives direct loans and has other financial services, also for transport infrastructure projects.
NetZeroCities supports European cities to drastically cut down greenhouse gas emissions.

Emissions reduction projects are at a competitive disadvantage

The EU’s current funding system must change significantly and regulatory change is needed to make the decarbonisation of transport a success. The EUKI funded project Towards a Climate Neutral EU: Efficient Allocation of EU Funds
conducted a survey of CSO, which identified 14 core regulatory issues that are reflected in the state of funding for emissions reductions
projects.

Key issues include:

In many cases, EU money has been spent on activities that contradict the EU’s declared aims, including investments that directly or indirectly supported the use of fossil fuels and/or destruction of biodiversity.
EU money is allocated for so-called development, i.e. overwhelmingly physical investments. At the same time, there are often serious deficiencies in the operation and maintenance of important public services (education, public transport etc.). In the long term, the new investments will not be sufficient (even if they are implemented properly) without the efficient operation of important public services. Moreover, it does not make much sense to pour money into new physical developments while important sectors (education, public transport, etc.) are grossly underperforming.
“Free” EU money in some cases resulted in investments that subsequently proved to be useless.
Indicators measuring the effects of EU funding, including climate tracking methodology, are often inappropriate. Among others, the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from EU funded projects, and nationally funded projects, is practically non-existent.

One major reason why projects that hinder climate goals are often funded is the outdated structure of the application evaluation process. When it comes to investments that will obviously reduce carbon emissions, the decision on whether a project is eligible for EU support is usually made using a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

The biggest problem is that when CBAs are carried out, the importance of the journey time reduction that a project can achieve is over-weighted. An over emphasis on journey time reductions often fails to account for the fact that shorter trip times mean individuals may take more trips, increasing carbon dioxide emissions unless emissions intensity is also reduced.

Another problem with journey time reduction as a criterion is that it can only be estimated with great error, and it is difficult to detect if an applicant exaggerates its extent in order to obtain funding. As it stands, projects with less ambitious CO2 emissions reduction impacts often win over projects which may have more significant CO2 emissions reduction impacts due to the over-weighting of the journey time-savings metric.

As the most important benefit of a project for us is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, it is clear we must redesign the project evaluation process in favour of decarbonisation over the CBA currently in use – especially with regards to the superficial journey time estimates. The main objective must be to reduce CO2 emissions and include relevant associated projects which support investment viability and impact over time.

Publications

What good looks like: G7 climate policy 2024 update

This brief outlines seven key policy recommendations for this June’s G7 summit that, if adopted, would demonstrate the ambition and leadership needed to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit in sight.

Climate justice and loss and damage: perspectives from the global south

This article outlines the loss and damage debate through a climate justice lens with particular emphasis on Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries. It examines the latest developments of the new loss and damage fund including operationalisation.

Tripling renewables by 2030: interpreting the global goal at the regional level

At COP28, governments agreed to triple global renewable capacity by 2030. This report breaks down what a 1.5ºC-aligned renewables rollout would look like at the regional level and calculate the associated investment needs.

Submission to the Australian Treasury consultation on the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax

As the gas industry in Australia has grown exponentially, the profit taxes it pays to the government have proportionally plummeted, presenting an opportunity to change this regime. Here, we respond to the Australian Government Treasury consultation on the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) – anti-avoidance provisions and clarifying treatment of ‘exploration’ and Mining, Quarrying or Prospecting Rights.

COP28 initiatives will only reduce emissions if followed through

Few of the sectoral initiatives announced during COP28 will meaningfully contribute to closing the emissions gap. Many of them lack either the ambition, clarity, coverage or accountability needed to really make a difference.

Unabated: the Carbon Capture and Storage 86 billion tonne carbon bomb aimed at derailing a fossil phase-out

The climate talks at COP28 have centred around the need for a fossil fuel phase-out. Our analysis quantifies the risk posed by restricting a phase-out commitment to only ‘unabated’ fossil fuels.

No change to warming as fossil fuel endgame brings focus onto false solutions

The CAT's annual warming estimate has risen by 0.1˚C to 2.5˚C. The estimate is largely influenced by weak existing targets rather than shifts triggered by updated Nationally Determined Contributions.

Submission on Australia's future gas strategy

The Australian government asked for answers to its questions around the future of its gas strategy. This was our submission.

When will global greenhouse gas emissions peak?

The IPCC says peaking before 2025 is a critical step to keep the 1.5°C limit within reach. With emissions set to rise in 2023, this leaves limited time to act. To assess if we can meet this milestone, we look at when global emissions might peak, as well as what we can do to get there in time.

Wind and solar benchmarks for a 1.5°C world

This report presents a detailed methodology for determining the amount of wind and solar capacity that is required for a country to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal. While the focus of the report is the method, it includes illustrative benchmarks for Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Germany, South Africa.

A 1.5°C future is possible: getting fossil fuels out of the Philippine power sector

The Philippines is also one of the fastest-growing developing countries: poverty is in decline, access to energy is rising and, with that, demand for energy services. However, fossil fuels still dominate the energy system, accounting for 78% of power generation in 2022. This report sets out what the Philippines government needs to do to get the country’s power sector onto a 1.5˚C compatible emissions pathway, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

State of Climate Action 2023

This report finds that global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C are failing across the board, with recent progress made on every indicator – except electric vehicle sales – lagging behind the pace and scale needed to address the climate crisis.

About us

Decarbonisation targets and 1.5℃ pathways

Comment