Brussels – A significant boost to the European Union’s Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) is on the horizon, with the European Commission proposing a €51.5 billion allocation for transport infrastructure between 2028 and 2034. Even as this doubling of funding appears promising, a closer look reveals a critical gap: the estimated €515 billion needed to complete the core Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) means the funds fall far short of what’s required. This discrepancy shifts the focus from the size of the CEF to how priorities are defined and, crucially, who controls the allocation of these substantial resources.
The debate surrounding the CEF isn’t simply about securing more money; it’s about the fundamental architecture of European infrastructure funding and the potential risks to rail integration. An analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) highlights a subtle but significant shift in the recent multiannual financial framework that could jeopardize long-term connectivity goals. The core issue revolves around a proposed separation between EU-funded international projects and nationally-managed internal network sections.
A Risky Separation of Funding Streams
Under the proposed structure, CEF Transport funding would be exclusively reserved for international and cross-border projects. Meanwhile, National and Regional Partnership Plans would be responsible for developing the internal sections of the TEN-T network within each member state. While seemingly logical – Brussels focusing on connections between countries, and national governments handling their own networks – this division carries substantial risk. If member states prioritize other investments, such as energy, defense, or road infrastructure, the crucial national sections of the TEN-T corridors could be delayed or even abandoned.
Without these connecting national segments, cross-border projects risk becoming isolated investments – “infrastructure islands,” as T&E describes them – well-funded but ultimately disconnected from the broader network. True European rail integration, experts argue, isn’t achieved through impressive border tunnels and bridges alone, but through seamless technical and operational continuity along the entire route.
Defining “Cross-Border” and the Threat of Megaprojects
The remarkably definition of a “cross-border project” is proving contentious. T&E argues for a clearly defined and prioritized list of projects to prevent funds from being diverted to initiatives of primarily national interest. The organization also cautions against limiting cross-border projects to mere border segments, emphasizing the demand to connect these sections to major urban centers to maximize their economic impact and ensure they aren’t underutilized. Although, some proposals, like a Stockholm–Turku–Helsinki connection lacking a direct land link, are already considered ineligible for CEF funding, while projects like Rail Nordica are being prioritized.
Another critical concern is the potential for megaprojects to consume a disproportionate share of the available funding. In the current financial year, Rail Baltica, a railway project connecting the Baltic states, has already absorbed approximately 20% of CEF Transport funds allocated to the rail sector. Reducing the maximum co-financing rate for projects in cohesion countries – from 80% to 75% – could free up resources for a wider range of initiatives, even if the 5% difference seems small on a project worth billions of euros.
The example of the Porto–Lisbon high-speed line illustrates the risk of late-stage project changes. A relocation of a station from a central to a peripheral location threatens the project’s timeline and potential ridership. This underscores the need for CEF 3 to prioritize mature, ready-to-implement projects, rather than concepts still facing political or technical hurdles.
Balancing Civil Transport with Military Mobility
The CEF 3 budget will also be divided between civil transport and military mobility. Currently, 44% of the EU’s contribution to military mobility initiatives is concentrated in just four countries: Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. While strengthening the East-West corridor is strategically important for European security, there’s a risk that Southern Europe could be underfunded in the area of civil transport. The four priority military corridors established in conjunction with NATO aim to address this imbalance, but geopolitical pressures remain strong. CEF Transport is a vital tool for maintaining the original objective of a cohesive European network.
Doubling CEF resources is a positive step, but it’s insufficient to address the massive investment needed to complete the core TEN-T network. The real debate, isn’t about simply securing more funds, but about establishing clear definitions for cross-border projects, protecting the budget from absorbing megaprojects, prioritizing mature projects, and achieving a geographical balance between East, West, and South. Without strict criteria and robust oversight, CEF 3 risks becoming a fragmented instrument serving scattered interests rather than fostering the integration of the European rail network. At a time when rail transport is crucial for both the climate transition and strategic security, Europe cannot afford inconsistent investments.
The coming years will be critical in determining whether the CEF 3 can deliver on its promise of a truly connected European transport network. Continued scrutiny of project selection and a commitment to prioritizing long-term integration will be essential to ensure that these funds are used effectively and contribute to a more sustainable and secure future for Europe.
What are your thoughts on the future of European infrastructure? Share your comments below.
