Heeft de Innovatieboxregeling bestaansrecht?
De innovatieboxregeling is per 1 januari 2017 veranderd. Alle bestaande innovatieboxafspraken zijn in beginsel per die datum vervallen. Wat zijn de veranderingen? Kunnen we meer beperkingen verwachten? Zal de regeling blijven bestaan?
Is the new CEF-T programme rendering itself obsolete?
The budget for the Connecting Europe Facility – Transport is almost depleted. Of the initial grants budget of € 22.4 billion in 2014 only 1 billion is left for the remainder of the programme period ending 2020. The time for grants is over; the time for new financial instruments has begun...
Will 2nd call of Marco Polo successor program make us forget the 1st call's disaster?
Recently, Member States have agreed to the European Commission's draft work programs for the Connecting Europe Facility for Transport. It’s now certain that the priority of Freight Transport Services within the Annual Work program will have a second call for proposals. This subprogram, to be regarded as successor to the former Marco Polo program (2003-2013), offers an interesting opportunity for transport companies to receive financial support for their sustainable activities. After the disaster of the first call at the end of 2014, does it deserve a second chance?
Generic innovation incentives in perspective, looking beyond opportunities in West-Europe
Before the crisis that began in 2007, many West European countries employed large grant budgets to drive innovation in their country. This according to the idea, innovative companies are successful in the market and thus create jobs. The crisis however led to reduced tax revenues for governments; governments decided to cut costs drastically and many national funding programs were aborted.
Generieke innovatiestimulering in perspectief: kijk verder dan West-Europa
Tot aan de crisis die in 2007 begon kenden veel West-Europese landen grote subsidiebudgetten om innovatie in hun land te kunnen stimuleren. Want zo is de gedachte, alleen innovatieve bedrijven zijn succesvol in de markt en creëren daarmee werkgelegenheid. De crisis leidde tot verminderde belastinginkomsten voor overheden; overheden besloten drastisch te bezuinigen en ook veel nationale subsidieprogramma's moesten eraan geloven.
Why CEF-T programme Freight Transport Services is no improvement compared to
predecessor Marco Polo
Summary CEF blog
The European Court of Auditors in 2013 assessed the European Marco Polo programme for sustainable freight transport on its effectiveness. Despite the strict recommendations, its successor programme Freight transport Services (FTS) within the CEF-T framework, when looking at the set-up and results for the first call for proposals in 2015, has been no improvement, on the contrary.
- Marco Polo was deemed ineffective as it did not meet the targets, little impact was achieved in shifting freight off the roads and there were no data to assess the achievement of the policy objectives (e.g. environmental benefits). FTS however, is lacking the calculation tools or parameters for the environmental benefit as under Marco Polo, rendering any impact assessment impossible.
- Under Marco Polo not enough relevant project proposals have been put forward because of the market situation (financial crisis) and the programme rules. However, under FTS only 5 projects have been selected for funding, whereas Marco Polo II over a 7-year period saw an average of 24.5 contracts annually.
- Deadweight (meaning, the funded transport service would have started and run even without funding) is not treated more strictly compared to Marco Polo.
PDF with the complete blog article.