The European Ports Association fears that the next European Commission, which is expected to take office in December to carry out its five-year mandate until 2029 under the leadership of President Ursula von der Leyen, is preparing to define a thorough reform of the EU budget which would include the inclusion of European transport funding in a single financing plan for each Member State, limiting the direct EU management of transport funding only major cross-border projects such as Rail Baltica, the Fehmarnbelt or the Lyon-Turin rail link.

The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) has called for the next rather, to maintain and strengthen the current instrument funding for European transport infrastructure, called the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and to better adapt it to the needs of ports and their stakeholders. According to ESPO, "This tool is the only effective way to Ensuring the completion of a European transport network state-of-the-art, extensive and well-functioning system that acts as a backbone and as a facilitator of the European internal market. A transport network - highlighted the association - is also essential to strengthen Europe's resilience and to improve his military preparation".

ESPO noted that 'the Commission's plan to make to include investments in transport and ports in the individual national plans is at odds with the need for a common assessment and increased European planning, such as indicated in the Draghi report. If ESPO understands that individual national plans will have to meet strict criteria and follow the EU priorities - noted the Ports Association European Standards - The envisaged approach weakens European coordination across Europe and risks undermining the level playing field between Member States. In fact, a approach based on national envelopes risks bringing back the transport policy in the 80s, with national priorities and a patchwork of 27 Member States and even more Regions. In the absence of sufficient appropriations for ports and important projects that take place in a port context (such as those relating to the energy transition), transport, and in particular port investments, risk being neglected in individual plans in favour of priorities politically more interesting".

'The end of CEF funding or any other Similar instrument for financing transport infrastructure - ESPO also noted - would mean that ports have to comply with the strict requirements of the new TEN-T policy while facing a situation where opportunities to financing and long-term investment stability are put at risk and will depend on priorities (in the making) of national governments (in the making). This does not will help maintain consistent views along the corridors transport economies that are intended to link the economies of entity, the European Union, and to help it compete with other global economic powers".

"Furthermore - continued the association - we must not forgetting that Member States have different state structures and The management and ownership of ports are organised in accordance with different levels of government, which has consequences on the conditions and on accessibility to port funding. In addition linking national funding for transport (and for reform programme in some (other) areas, the Commission could trigger cross-conditionality which could dangerously jeopardise the progress of the investments of ports, which have no responsibility nor the competence to push for these reforms". Second ESPO, "any future plan of the Commission should prevent the financing of ports from being hampered by the non-compliance of reforms at Member State level'. "European ports - ESPO underlined - believe that the transport investment plans and projects should be essentially verified on the basis of their compliance with the priorities set out in the European TEN-T policy and should be priority on the basis of their contribution to greater added value to the EU'.

In addition, the association recalled that if "the ports (often) are not "cross-border" entities in strictly speaking, however, have a crucial cross-border impact. They are usually the starting point of intermodal operations and serve maritime transport flows cross-border markets, the local market in which they are located and also many cross-border connections with the hinterland. Although it is important - according to ESPO - the "cross-border" factor should not be perceived as the only indicator of added value of the EU. The transport sector is a network industry. A missing link or little transport infrastructure performance in one region has an impact on the entire network and therefore undermines the proper functioning of the economy and society European. Conversely, a well-functioning port ensures the connectivity and brings added value far beyond borders national teams of a country. As the Commission has already stated In 2003, transport links are the arteries of the market European interior. If they have lower performance, the rest of the economy. If they're efficient, everyone benefits the other sectors. This is why politics and funding transport must be based on a European approach."

Highlighting the role of the European port sector not only in terms of the EU economy, but also for the decarbonisation of the sector maritime survey, and recalling that according to the most recent study on the need for investment in ports, These are quantified at 80 billion euros over the next ten years ( of 30 April 2024), the Association of European Ports has proposed six elements that should be an essential part of the other Transport Infrastructure Financing Instrument EU in order to be fully effective. Second ESPO, "should reserve a budget for the most important ports consistent; should ensure that a dedicated and budget support those port projects that are that are socially crucial and can help ports to achieving a green, digital, secure and competitive Europe; Should ensure that the cross-border criterion in the strict sense is not a sine qua non condition for receiving funding; Should ensure greater transparency in the selection of projects and on the the role of the Member States in this process; should structure the "calls" by modality, not by general topics, in order to improve clarity and avoid overlapping Areas; should reduce complexity and burdens in the processes of submitting applications".