EU funds for roads - CEDR

Page 56 / 80
e) The eligibility of the various types of road projects (i.e. construction, design, maintenance
etc.) by each EU fund is usually determined by the regulation governing the operation of
each fund. Restrictions exist for the roads’ maintenance and operation projects and some
road-works’ management projects. Considering that in many developed EU member
states⎯but also in a growing number of other member states⎯the road infrastructure is
already complete or will be completed rather soon, the EC should start thinking about
considering as eligible road projects that do not involve the construction of new
infrastructure, but deal with operational improvement (e.g. ‘incident management’) and the
maintenance of roads. The eligibility of all road-related types of projects will also contribute
to the implementation of integrated road development solutions, based on the life-cycle costmanagement
approach.
f) The securing of EU funds for the implementation of road projects by a Potential Recipient
Authority (PRA) presupposes a series of actions taken at EU and national levels through
which EU funds are made available for engagement in road projects. The PRA will then
have to ‘compete’ with other eligible authorities to get its projects approved for co-financing
by EU funds. This procedure is fair but takes a lot of time, and time is a very precious,
scarce element when it comes to the use of EU funds.
g) In order to be successful in applying for co-financing for its road projects by EU funds, a
PRA should develop its relevant capacity and follow a number of practical guidelines.
However, even following all these guidelines is not a guarantee of success if many PRAs
compete for the same funds.
h) Furthermore, even when the co-financing of a project by an EU fund is approved, the EU
funds may not ultimately be received by the recipient authority if all the requirements of the
EU fund Regulation are not fulfilled.
i) The ‘bureaucracy’ involved in using EU funds is onerous; in certain cases this leads to
questions being raised about the ultimate benefit of their use. This issue is acute in countries
that have not integrated the rules, procedures, and practices required by the EU funds’
Regulations into their own (national) legal and regulatory framework and are obliged to
implement them in parallel to their own framework. Besides all these ‘weaknesses’, most
countries and organisations are very keen to get and use EU funds, mainly because they are
subsidies (grants) that do not have to be repaid.
j) It is true to say that ‘poor’ countries are happy to receive EU funds because this funding
allows them to increase their funding capacity for investment projects and at the same time
to improve their management capacity, while ‘rich’ countries are also happy NOT to receive
EU funds because not getting EU funding saves costs and means that these countries are
not under pressure to prepare and implement their projects and are not subject to the tight
deadlines imposed by the EU funds’ restricted implementation periods.
k) In addition to the grants from EU funds, a PRA may also use loans from the European
Investment Bank. The lending conditions attached to these loans are much better than the
conditions attached to loans from commercial banks. In addition to the good terms of the
loans, the procedure for application, approval, disbursement, and servicing is easier for the
recipient and quite swift. EIB loans are, therefore, very attractive.
EU funds for roads