ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 138: Notat og høringssvar vedrørende Kommissionens høring vedrørende revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæisk Interesse, fra erhvervsministeren

Erhvervsudvalget 2020-21
ERU Alm.del Bilag 138
Offentligt

NOTAT

8. december 2020

Danish response to Commission’s roadmap on the revision of the

Communication on important projects of common European Interest

The Danish Government appreciates the opportunity to comment on the

European Commission’s roadmap on revision of Communication on im-

portant projects of common European Interest (IPCEI).

The Danish Government strongly welcomes the intention of the Commis-

sion to limit the scope of the revision to the three main adjustments foreseen

in the roadmap on 1) providing further guidance on criteria in the commu-

nication, including the Green Deal, 2) facilitating the involvement for

SME’s and

3) ensuring that the process is genuinely transparent and inclu-

sive.

In general, we see a benefit in reviewing and updating the state aid guide-

lines, in order to take into account the above-mentioned three priorities in

order to support the Union’s objectives, especially including the green and

digital transition. The Danish Government finds that the current communi-

cation on IPCEI (2014/C 188/02) has contributed in a positive way to pro-

vide helpful guidelines for Member States when preparing schemes for an

approval process that is as smooth and quick as possible, while ensuring a

strict use and application of IPCEI. The upcoming revision should not lead

to a general relaxation of the rules or an undermining of the Commissions

objective assessment of notified projects.

Indicatives in the roadmap

Further guidance

–

contributing to the green transition

We believe that the Communication on IPCEI can play a role in relation to

fulfil and meet EU’s energy and climate targets. Therefore, a key priority

should be to maintain its supporting role, also in the context of the Euro-

pean Green Deal and the objective to decarbonize the EU energy systems

as a mean to combat climate change and to promote a more sustainable

economy and society as a whole. We therefore support further guidance

and clarification on the application of the criteria for environmental, energy

and transport projects.

ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 138: Notat og høringssvar vedrørende Kommissionens høring vedrørende revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæisk Interesse, fra erhvervsministeren

2/4

In general, we believe that IPCEI should be allowed to pursue other objec-

tives beyond climate and environmental objectives. However, IPCEI re-

lated to

industrial projects

(including but not limited to those supporting

strategic value chains) should to a greater extent be oriented towards con-

tributing to one of the EU’s climate objectives. The 2014 communication

already states that projects must contribute in a concrete, clear and identi-

fiable manner to one or more EU objectives. We suggest attaching higher

significance to this criterion for projects to contribute to a climate neutral

economy in the EU by 2050 at the latest, in the Commission’s

assessment

of IPCEI related to industrial projects, by giving it precedence over other

EU objectives, i.e. exalting the criterion. In addition, the focus of IPCEI

related to industrial projects should continue to be on enabling research,

development and breakthrough innovation.

We would refer

to the Danish Government’s

response of 20

of November

on how the competition policy can support the Green Deal.

Finally, we welcome the intention of referring to the Digital Strategy. The

revision should enable the development of state-of-the-art digital technol-

ogies through the use of IPCEI. However, always in the case of a market

failure and projects going beyond the aim of catching up with the techno-

logical developments globally.

Involvement of SMEs

We are very supportive of the aim of the Commission to enhance the par-

ticipation of SMEs in IPCEI. We find it essential to ensure a transparent

and inclusive process when establishing IPCEI related to industrial projects

that allows for stakeholders and companies of all sizes to participate and

contribute in order to ensure the best possible projects.

As noted in the roadmap, SMEs generally receive smaller amounts of aid

given their smaller size. This aid is therefore in general less likely to distort

competition. SMEs make up around 99 pct. of all European businesses.

Overall, we find that the issues related to the involvement of SMEs are

twofold. Firstly, experience from previous IPCEI seem to indicate a lack of

incentive for both Member States and large companies to involve SMEs in

the first place. In this regard, we are supportive of encouraging large busi-

nesses to involve SMEs in their projects, including from other Member

States, through better incentives. Such incentives could take the form of

specific benefits in case SMEs are involved or the involvement of SMEs

could be listed more explicit as a positive indicator than is currently the

case cf. Article 20 (e). In addition, higher aid intensity could be allowed for

SMEs than for larger businesses in order to increase the incentive for SMEs

to participate.

3/4

Secondly, SMEs do not have the same administrative capacity compared

to lager companies to go through a long application process required in

order to recive the aid under the IPCEI Communication. Thus, we are open

towards introducing an explicit principle of proportionality in the notifica-

tions process, making it less burdensome for SMEs to apply for the aid

through an IPCEI.

Transparency and inclusiveness

It is the Danish opinion that IPCEI related to industrial projects granted

state aid should be open for participation of interested undertakings from

all EU Member states. Currently there is no clear procedure for how Mem-

ber States can coordinate and cooperate on IPCEI in advance of the state

aid assessment.

The work of Industrial Alliances is a step in the right direction in terms of

improving transparency and inclusiveness in the early stages of establish-

ing an IPCEI for industrial development. However, we believe that more

can be done in order to safeguard that all Member States are given an op-

portunity to participate.

Building on the already existing positive indications of making it possible

for all interested Member States to participate (article 20 (a)) and on the

recommendation of the Strategic Forum for IPCEI to increase the transpar-

ency and inclusiveness of IPCEI, we suggest a formalised process where

all Member States are provided with project descriptions well in advance

before a formal state aid (pre-)notification is sent to the Commission, if no

prior consultation or invitation for possible participation have been pro-

vided earlier to all Member States.

Preserve fundamental market-based principal

When large cross border projects with clear common European added value

–

not including infrastructural projects

–

entail such big risks that private

investors are not willing to take them alone or considered unprofitable it is

important that the states involved have the opportunity to grant state aid.

However, such state aid should stimulate additional private investments

and not distort competition in a disproportional way.

This is especially pronounced when dealing with big projects and poten-

tially large amounts of state aid there is a potential for substantial distortion

of the competition in the internal market. Therefore, the Danish Govern-

ment finds it important, that state aid for IPCEI in particular is assessed

thoroughly by the Commission in a manner where the balance test is carried

out on a solid and well-informed foundation of information. If the Com-

mission has to compromise on the thoroughness and quality of the assess-

ment it may should consider opening the formal investigation procedure

4/4

prior to state aid approval in order to avoid this formality being challenged

in court thereby making the process slower.

In addition, the Commission should continue to apply the market-based

principles in the communication, meaning that IPCEI can only be used to

overcome market or systemic failures or to address societal challenges that

cannot otherwise be addressed. Moving forward, we must maintain this ra-

tionale, which should continue to be the guiding principle when assessing

the eligibility of aid under the IPCEI Communication. Member States and

the Commission have a joint responsibility to ensure that IPCEI do not un-

dermine effective markets. They should also not spur protectionism that

might reduce European businesses’ access to global value chains.

In addi-

tion, they should not only benefit the participating undertakings, but also

contribute to the EU’s overarching

objectives, including through positive

spill-overs to other Member States or sectors.

Finally, it is important that the category of activities eligible to receive state

aid under the IPCEI Communication is not expanded beyond first industrial

deployment. Hence, eligible activities and projects should continue to be

limited to research, development, upscaling of pilot facilities or to the first-

in-kind deployment.

Monitor and evaluate the outcome

The Commission should continue to assess and monitor the ex-post

changes in the behaviour of the participating undertakings as well as gen-

eral market changes resulting from the provided state aid, including market

foreclosure and dominance or risk of initiation of a subsidy race between

Member States.

In line with the communication from 2014, projects should continue to be

subject to regular monitoring. Results of IPCEI should - to the largest pos-

sible extent - be made publicly available to build upon and learn from in

order

to support further innovation and strengthening the EU’s global com-

petitiveness.

When reviewing the rules, and especially related to industrial projects, we

must remember that there at this point in time relatively little experience in

terms of the effect of IPCEI on supporting industrial development and com-

petitiveness. Therefore, we would encourage the Commission to present an

overall evaluation of the use of the IPCEI to industrial projects in 2025 at

the latest. This should include

the effect on EU’s global competitiveness,

description of participants (e.g. large vs. small countries and companies

alike) and (potential) distortionary effects both within the Single Market

and externally.