The Baltic States managed to submit the Rail Baltic finance application to the European Commission on the 26th of February 2015, but the process was not an easy one. Although the EU financing for this project has been earmarked for years, a positive financing decision can not be taken for granted. The Commission is expected to come out with their response on funding application - either positive or negative - in July or August.
MEP Zigmantas Balčytis of Lithuania is one of the most vocal Rail Baltic activists in Brussels, and his parliamentary question from the 22nd of January 2015 presents a concise summary of Lithuanian approach towards Rail Baltic. Mr. Balčytis' parliamentary question E-000924 [with my blue color debunking comments in square brackets amongst the text] is here:
Subject: Responsibility of the Baltic States' joint venture ‘RB
Rail’ for distributing EU funds to implement the ‘Rail Baltica’ project
Question for written answer to the Commission, presented on the 22nd of January 2015 by MEP Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)
On 28 October 2014 the Baltic States set up a joint venture called RB Rail to handle implementation of the Rail Baltica trans-European rail network project. Early this year the joint venture has to apply to the Commission for funding for the construction work, but there is disagreement among the Member States implementing the project on the question of the most suitable recipient. Some are seeking to ensure that the designated recipient will be the RB Rail joint venture, whereas others maintain that the recipients should be each of the Member States participating in the project.
The latter camp fears that if it were designated the recipient, the joint venture, and not the Member States themselves, would determine which projects should be financed and which ones should not. [Rail Baltic is a multi-national project. In order to guarantee a coordinated implementation of the whole project, RB Rail (i.e. the joint venture) is in charge of scope management. Furthermore, all the participating countries should have a common understanding on the desired outcome of the project.] There is another risk which might arise, namely that two Member States in agreement, disregarding the interests of the rest, could, having secured the majority of votes in the joint venture, take decisions to finance and implement projects useful to them alone. [One of RB Rail’s essential tasks is to make sure that no country can favor its own projects to the disadvantage of other countries or the project’s entity. Any signs of questionable activities would constitute a prominent threat to the whole project.]
Such situations could hamper the implementation of this major European project, which could be delayed or even halted if Member States failed to agree or could not come to a joint decision. A case of this kind, in which no decision could be reached jointly, occurred in connection with the building of the common LNG terminal in the Baltic region. [Hamper, delay, halt? If such fears are realistic, the Connecting Europe Facility will have to judge the project weak, and deny any financing for it. One would have hoped that the Baltic states had learned something from the LNG terminal dispute.]
Does not the Commission believe that any decision of the kind described would run counter to the EU’s common interest and could impede effective development of the single EU railway area? Does it not believe that each Member State, taking into account that the project is a matter of common interest, should itself decide which projects it will implement on its territory using the funds allocated to it for that purpose? [The answer to question “Should each Member State decide itself which projects to implement on its own territory?” is a plain and simple no. In a multi-national project, like Rail Baltic, the funds must be allocated by the multi-national project organization, in this case RB Rail.]
Question for written answer to the Commission, presented on the 22nd of January 2015 by MEP Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)
On 28 October 2014 the Baltic States set up a joint venture called RB Rail to handle implementation of the Rail Baltica trans-European rail network project. Early this year the joint venture has to apply to the Commission for funding for the construction work, but there is disagreement among the Member States implementing the project on the question of the most suitable recipient. Some are seeking to ensure that the designated recipient will be the RB Rail joint venture, whereas others maintain that the recipients should be each of the Member States participating in the project.
The latter camp fears that if it were designated the recipient, the joint venture, and not the Member States themselves, would determine which projects should be financed and which ones should not. [Rail Baltic is a multi-national project. In order to guarantee a coordinated implementation of the whole project, RB Rail (i.e. the joint venture) is in charge of scope management. Furthermore, all the participating countries should have a common understanding on the desired outcome of the project.] There is another risk which might arise, namely that two Member States in agreement, disregarding the interests of the rest, could, having secured the majority of votes in the joint venture, take decisions to finance and implement projects useful to them alone. [One of RB Rail’s essential tasks is to make sure that no country can favor its own projects to the disadvantage of other countries or the project’s entity. Any signs of questionable activities would constitute a prominent threat to the whole project.]
Such situations could hamper the implementation of this major European project, which could be delayed or even halted if Member States failed to agree or could not come to a joint decision. A case of this kind, in which no decision could be reached jointly, occurred in connection with the building of the common LNG terminal in the Baltic region. [Hamper, delay, halt? If such fears are realistic, the Connecting Europe Facility will have to judge the project weak, and deny any financing for it. One would have hoped that the Baltic states had learned something from the LNG terminal dispute.]
Does not the Commission believe that any decision of the kind described would run counter to the EU’s common interest and could impede effective development of the single EU railway area? Does it not believe that each Member State, taking into account that the project is a matter of common interest, should itself decide which projects it will implement on its territory using the funds allocated to it for that purpose? [The answer to question “Should each Member State decide itself which projects to implement on its own territory?” is a plain and simple no. In a multi-national project, like Rail Baltic, the funds must be allocated by the multi-national project organization, in this case RB Rail.]
Answer E-000925/2015 given on 3 March 2015 by European Commissioner for Transport, Ms. Violeta Bulc can be read here.
The Risk
Estonian MEP Urmas Paet placed a parliamentary question on the state of project Rail Baltic on the 23rd of February 2015. Mr. Paet inquires whether the Commission believes that the project is still on schedule, and what are the greatest risks associated with the implementation of the project. Ms. Bulc has not yet given her answer to these questions.
Even without Ms. Bulc's answer we can state, that the major risk for project Rail Baltic seems to be the inferior credibility of the project organization. Just reading through the list of risks and hazards mentioned in MEP Balčytis' parliamentary question raises serious doubts, whether financing such a project, with seemingly no hope for over-the-border coordination and cooperation, would be worth the risk. It is rather surprising that such fear, uncertainty and doubt mongering comments about Rail Baltic come from a MEP representing a Baltic country, and not from a supporter of another project that would be competing for the same money.
The feasibility of Rail Baltic lays on the assumption that the whole project will be implemented. Successfully constructing two thirds of the proposed Rail Baltic would be as great an accomplishment as successfully digging two thirds of a railway tunnel. Lots of cost with very little benefits.
 |
|
The
Baltic Trendsetters Club has awarded the Rail Baltic companies in Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania a certificate for “setting up the RB Rail joint venture of
the Tallinn-Kaunas European standard rail gauge railroad”. The winners of this
award have showed exceptional boldness, persistence and creativity. Too bad
that the “missing link” between Kaunas and the Lithuanian-Polish border is
missing.
Source
of the picture: Transport Ministry of Lithuania.
|
-----------------
If you are interested in a more elaborate analysis on Rail Baltic issues, please feel free to contact me by e-mail or via newsbrokers.fi.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti