CEF Funding: EU Corridors & National Projects – Impact & Stakes

The European Commission is proposing a doubled budget of EUR 51.5 billion for transport under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 3 for the period 2028–2034, though the amount remains significantly less than the estimated EUR 515 billion needed to complete the core Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).

CEF 3 Budget: Insufficient Funds, Shifting Priorities

Despite the increased allocation, concerns are rising that the CEF 3 budget is insufficient to complete the core TEN-T network. The focus is shifting to how priorities are defined and who controls the allocation of funds, according to an analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E).

CEF vs. National Plans: A Risky Separation

The new budget structure proposes a distinction between CEF Transport funding, which would exclusively finance international and cross-border projects, and National and Regional Partnership Plans, which would cover internal sections of the TEN-T network. While the idea is to have Brussels fund connections between states and governments manage their own networks, there is a risk that member states may prioritize other domestic investments—such as energy, defense, or road infrastructure—potentially postponing national sections of the TEN-T corridors.

Without these national sections, cross-border projects risk becoming “infrastructure islands,” well-funded but poorly connected to domestic networks. European rail integration requires technical and operational continuity along the entire route, not just border connections.

Defining “Cross-Border Project”

T&E argues that the list of priority cross-border projects should be clarified to avoid funds being diverted to projects of primarily national interest. Cross-border projects should also not be limited to isolated border segments, but connected to major urban centers to maximize economic impact.

For example, a Stockholm–Turku–Helsinki connection without a direct land link is considered ineligible for CEF funding, while projects like Rail Nordica should be prioritized. The debate centers on control of the agenda and preventing fragmentation of the limited budget.

Megaprojects and Funding Allocation

Megaprojects currently consume a significant portion of CEF Transport funds; Rail Baltica, for instance, absorbed approximately 20% of funds in the current financial year. Reducing the maximum co-financing rate for projects in cohesion countries from 80% to 75% could free up resources for additional projects. Even a 5% difference can have a significant impact on projects worth billions of EUR.

The Porto–Lisbon high-speed line serves as a cautionary example, as relocating a station to a peripheral area threatens the project’s timetable and potential traffic. CEF 3 should only fund mature projects ready for implementation, not those that are politically or technically unstable.

Geographical Balance and Military Mobility

The CEF 3 budget must be divided between civil transport and military mobility. Currently, 44% of the EU contribution to military mobility calls has been concentrated in Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. While strengthening the East-West corridor is strategically important, there is a risk of underfunding civil transport in Southern Europe. The four priority military corridors established with NATO aim to ensure a more balanced distribution, but geopolitical pressure remains strong.

Priorities, Not Just Funding

Doubling CEF resources is a positive step, but it remains limited compared to the overall needs of the TEN-T network. The key issues are now clearly defining cross-border projects, protecting the budget from megaprojects, selecting only mature projects, and achieving geographical balance between East, West, and South. Without strict criteria and clear control over priorities, CEF 3 risks becoming a fragmented instrument that finances scattered interests rather than integrating the European rail network.