Issues related to individual projects

2014-10-24
Beneficiaries section
Issues related to individual projects
Q&A
Wniosek aplikacyjny CEF
Application Form
PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.
1
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part A / D
Zastosowanie kursu przeliczeniowego EUR/PLN
W części A3.2 podano, iż kurs przeliczeniowy powinien być
z miesiąca składania wniosku lub też miesiąca poprzedzającego.
Natomiast w części D4.6.1 Information of funding sources
podano, iż należy zastosować kurs z listopada - grudnia 2014 r.
Exchange rate EUR/PLN
In the part A3.2 of the application it is indicated that EUR/PLN exchange rate to
be applied should be the one of the month of submitting the application or
proceeding the submission. However, in the section D4.6.1 Information of
funding sources - indication of the exchange rate of November-December is
provided. Please clarify.
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D2.1. General description of the proposed Action
including needs and objectives
Prosimy o potwierdzenie czy mamy rozumieć je jako wskaźniki produktu które
osiągniemy poprzez modernizację, a które przyczynią się do osiągniecia
celów projektu np. dostosowanie infrastruktury do prędkości 160 km/h (dł.
linii kolejowej, obiekty inżynieryjne itp.) - czy źródłem weryfikacji może być
wtedy protokół odbioru wykonanej infrastruktury.
Please confirm if they need to be interpreted as product indicators to be achieved through
out the modernization and will contribute to the achievement of the project objectives
(adjustment of infrastructure to speed parameters 160 km/h, length of the rail track,
engineering objects? Can the taking over certificate be qualified as confirmation of
delivery in such a case.
2
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D3.1 (TEN-T Core Network corridors)
Proszę o potwierdzenie, że w przypadku gdy projekt jest zdefiniowany w
Załączniku 1, część I do Rozporządzenia 1316/2013, nie ma
obowiązku/konieczności wykazywania jednocześnie że jest projektem wspólnego
zainteresowania w rozumieniu definicji zawartych
w art. 7 Rozporządzenia 1315/2013.
Application part D, point 3.1(TEN-T Core Network corridors):
Please confirm that if the project is defined in Annex 1, Part I of the Regulation
1316/2013, there is no requirement / need to prove that at the same time is a project of
common interest within the meaning of the definitions contained in Article 7 of the
Regulation 1315/2013
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D3.2 (TEN-T priorities):
Proszę o potwierdzenie, że dopuszczalne jest (i nie wpłynie negatywnie na ocenę
tego punktu w aplikacji) odniesienie do innego punktów wniosku tj. 3.8 (wąskie
gardła) w zakresie opisu, w jaki sposób projekt eliminuje wąskie gardła
(jeden z priorytetów TEN-T)
/rozwiązanie pozwalające uniknąć powtarzania tych samych treści
celem "odchudzenia wniosku”/
Application part D, point 3.2 (TEN-T priorities):
Please confirm that it is possible (and will not have negative impact the assessment of
the point in the application) to refer to other elements of the application, i.e. 3.8
(bottlenecks) in a scope of description of how the project eliminates bottlenecks (one of
the priorities of the TEN-T) . (solution permitting to avoid repeating the same content, in
order to "slim down the application")
3
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D3.3 (priorities and objectives of the proposal):
Proszę o potwierdzenie, że w tym punkcie należy wskazać konkretne priorytety
spośród określonych w sekcji 1 treści Zaproszenia (section 1 Subject of Call for
proposal text) oraz cele spośród wskazane w sekcjach 3.1 - 3.3 w zakresie Multiannual Work Programme, do których odnosi się aplikowany projekt.
Application part D, point 3.2 (priorities and objectives of the proposal):
Please confirm that in this point it should be pointed out specific priorities from identified
in the section 1 of the Invitation content (section 1 Subject of Call for proposal text) and
the objectives from those indicated in the sections 3.1 - 3.3 of the Multi-annual Work
Programme, to which the applied project referes.
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D3.5 (socio-economics benefits at macro level):
Proszę o potwierdzenie, że dopuszczalne jest (i nie wpłynie negatywnie na ocenę
tego punktu w aplikacji) odniesienie do innych punktów wniosku (pkt. 5.6)
w zakresie opisu założeń i wyników prognoz ruchowych (the results of demand)
Application part D, point 3.5 (socio-economics benefits at macro level):
Please confirm that it is possible(and will not have negative impact on the evaluation of
the point in the application), to refer to other elements of the application (point. 5.6) in a
scope of description of the assumptions and results of the movement predictions (the
results of demand)
4
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
Część D5.3 (ex-ante evaluation)
w kontekście wymagań opisanych dla tego pkt w Guide:
Application part D5.3 (ex-ante evaluation)
in the context of the requirements described for this point in the Guide:
1. Określić rozważane opcje alternatywne - analizowane warianty inwestycyjne
scharakteryzowane są w pkt. 5.4 wniosku, gdyż stanowią logiczny element procesu
przeprowadzania analizy efektywności finansowej projektu. Proszę o potwierdzenie, że
dopuszczalne jest (i nie wpłynie negatywnie na ocenę tego punktu w aplikacji)
odniesienie do innego punktu wniosku tj. 5.4 w zakresie opisu rozważanych wariantów.
Identify alternative options - analyzed investment variants are characterized in the point. 5.4 of
the application, because there are a logical component of the analysis of financial performance
of the project. Please confirm that it is possible (and will not have negative impact on the
evaluation of this point of the application) to refer to another point of the application, i.e. 5.4 in
a scope of considered variants.
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
2. Lista wskaźników oraz ich źródła weryfikacji - prosimy o potwierdzenie że
dostatecznym rozwinięciem tego pktu będzie lista wskaźników efektywności
finansowej inwestycji (FNPV/C, FRR/C,FNPV/K, FRR/K ) oraz wskaźników
efektywności ekonomicznej inwestycji (ENPV, ERR oraz B/C), a także wskazanie
dokumentu RSW, w ramach którego przeprowadzono ocenę ex-ante projektu, jako
źródła weryfikacji wartości ww. wskaźników.
Jeśli nie jest wystarczające - wówczas prosimy o wskazanie przykładowej listy
wskaźników oczekiwanych w tym pkcie oraz źródeł ich weryfikacji.
To provide a list of indicators and their verification sources - please confirm that sufficient
development of this point will be a list of the financial performance indicators of investment
(FNPV / C, FRR / C, FNPV / K, FRR / K) and economic performance indicators of investment
(ENPV, ERR and B / C), as well as indication of the RSW document, which comprised ex-ante
evaluation of the project as a source of verification of above indicators.
If this is not enough - then please indicate the indicative list of indicators expected
5
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
3. Powtórzenie treści z pkt 3.5 w zakresie założeń i wyników prognoz ruchowych
(the results of any demand / traffic forecast study)
w wymaganiach określonych w Guide.
Stąd powtórzenie koncepcji przyjętej dla pkt 3.5 wniosku i uwagi nr 4:
Proszę o potwierdzenie, że dopuszczalne jest (i nie wpłynie negatywnie na ocenę
tego punktu w aplikacji) odniesienie do innych punktów wniosku (pkt. 5.6)
w zakresie opisu założeń i wyników prognoz ruchowych (the results of demand)
Repetition of the contents of point 3.5 in a scope of assumptions and results of the predictions of
movement (the results of any demand / traffic forecast study) the requirements set out in the Guide.
Hence the repetition of concepts adopted for point 3.5 of the proposal and comments No 4:
Please confirm that it is possible (and will not have negative impact on the evaluation of this point of
the application), to refer to other elements of the application (point 5.6) in a scope of the assumptions
and results of the predictions of movement (the results of demand).
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Pytania ogólne
1. Rozliczanie projektów CEF, które pomyślnie przejdą weryfikację KE.
Czy rozliczenia będą prowadzone w EUR czy w PLN?
In addition, the question about the settlement of the projects which will pass the
verification of the EC. Will the settlement be carried out in EUR or in PLN?
2. Czy również należy wziąć po uwagę wskaźniki rezultatu - skrócenie średniego
czasu przejazdu, wzrost średniej prędkości handlowej (założenia z AKK? - które są
opisane w innej części wniosku) i co należy wtedy rozumieć przez źródła ich
weryfikacji?
Should be the reduction of travel time, increase of average trade speed (assumptions
from CBA described in another section of application) taken as result indicator? If yes,
what should be the source of verification?
6
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny CEF
Application Form
Centrum Unijnych Projektów
Transportowych
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part A
1. A1 - General Information on the proposal – Summary – please
specify what information should this section contain - is it
enough to provide general characteristics/information on the
location of the proposed Action and short description of
planned activities (works, studies)
2. Stakeholders – please specify, is this concerns only
organizations involved in implementation of the proposed
Action, other Member States or should e.g. society be also
included (that will benefit from new job opportunities, shorter
traveling/commuting time)
7
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C – General questions
1. The projects applied to CEF often consist of several
tasks with separate EIA decisions. Do we have to fill
out separate part of the AF for each EIA Decision?
2. If the project does not have all of EIA decisions issued
yet, how to fill out the section “I COMPLIANCE WITH
EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY” for this part of the
project?
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
I COMPLIANCE WITH EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ERTMS, SESAR, ITS, VTMIS, telematics application system, and vessels and rail rolling stocks retrofitting proposals
only need to fill in Section 1 "Compliance with EU policy on environmental protection" if the proposed action
includes physical works (e.g. installation of antennas) affecting a site designated as protection zone under the
"Habitats" (92/43/EC) and Birds (2009/147/EC) Directives. Section 1.6 "Actions with a potential impact on water Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC" needs to be completed only if these physical works are located in
protected waters as defined in Article 1 of this Directive.
Please explain: there is no section “Compliance with EU policy on
environmental protection” in the AF. There is “I COMPLIANCE WITH EU
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY“ or “1. Consistency of the project with
environmental policy” so this has to be more specific. Which section is it
exactly, because it is unclear?
8
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
2. Development consent
2.1Has a development consent already been given to the
Action?
Ye s
No
Please explain: what if there is more than one construction permit? Do we have to give
information about construction permits already obtained and the permits that are yet to be
obtained.
2. Development consent
2.3 If no development consent has been given to the Action (question 2.1) please
indicate when was the formal request for the development consent introduced and
specify the administrative steps accomplished so far and describe those remaining:
By which date is the final decision expected?
(dd/mm /yyyy)
Please explain: Often one environmental impact decision is used to obtain several building
permits. Some of them have been already given and some not. Can we describe all permits that
haven’t been issued yet in this section?
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
2. Development consent
2.4 Indicate which competent authority(ies) has(have) given or will give
the development consent:
Competent authorities may vary so we will describe all of them and indicate which
permit is to be given by each authority
3. APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (the 'EIA Directive')
3.2 When covered by Annex I of the Directive, attach the following documents:
a) the non-technical summary of the EIA report[1]
b) information on consultations with environmental authorities, the public and, if applicable,
consultations with other Member States, carried out in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the
EIA Directive
c) the decision of the competent authority issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of the EIA
Directive, including information on how it was made available to the public.
Please explain: do we only have to attach the documents and do not have to describe
them in the AF?
9
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
3.3.
When covered by Annex II of the Directive, has an Environmental Impact
Assessment been carried out for this Action?
Y ES - in which case, attach the documents listed under point 3.2
NO - in which case, please provide:
a) a copy of the determination required in Article 4(2) of the EIA Directive
(known as 'screening decision'), including justification that the project will
not have significant environmental effects;
or
b) explain the reasons why the action has no significant environmental
effects on the basis of the thresholds or criteria established by the
relevant national legislation (this information is not needed, if it is already
included in the decision mentioned under point a),
Can we explain
satisfactionary?
(b) when the justification in the screening decision is not
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
3.4Declaration of the Competent Authority:
(the signature is only required in case the action does not fall under the scope of the
EIA Directive, i.e. the answer to 3.1 was "Neither of the two annexes)
Declares that the action , is not included in annex I nor in Annex II of Directive
2011/92 (EIA Directive).
Comments
Please explain: What if action wasn’t included in appendix I or II of EIA Directive
but falls under the scope under criteria of Polish law? What kind of comments do
we have to provide? Based on which criteria?
10
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
4. APPLICATION OF THE Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and
programmes on the environment[2] (the 'SEA-Directive')
If the reply (to 4.2.) is 'Yes', please provide the non-technical summary[3] of the Environmental Report and
the information required by Article 9.1 (b) of that Directive (either an internet link or an electronic copy).
The information required by Article 9.1 (b) of SEA Directive weren’t mandatory in
last perspective. Could you explain why it is required now?
5. APPLICATION OF THE Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (Habitats Directive); assessment of effects on Natura 2000 sites
Is the Action likely to have significant effects on sites included or intended to be included in the
NATURA 2000 network?
Please explain: “Sites included or intended to be included in the NATURA 2000
network” - which sites are they? The ones planned to be reported to EU (national
list , “shadow list”) or the ones already approved by EC but not yet included to
Nature 2000 list - SCI - Site of Community Importance?
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part C
6. APPLICATION OF THE Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
(Water Framework Directive)
Does the Action involve a new modification to the physical characteristics of a surface
water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater which deteriorate the
status of a water body or cause failure to achieve good water status/potential?
NO
YES
If YES, please provide the assessment of the impacts on the water body and a
detailed explanation of how the conditions under Article 4 (7). of the Water
Framework Directive were/are fulfilled.
Explain if needed:
Do we have to provide explanation if the answer is NO or also if the answer is
YES? What kind of documents are required to ensure that the assessment of
impacts on Water Bodies was conducted? In Polish law the “WFD assessment” is
included to EIA and EIA decision has to give information about this assessment.
11
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
1. D2.2. – how detailed the description mentioned in the Guide for Applicants in
points i), ii) and iii) should be.
2. D4.1. – if the proposal has not yet received all approvals necessary to
commence the proposed Action, is it advised to list approvals that are to be
obtained in the future and provide information on advancement of ongoing
procedures.
3. D.2.1 – what are acceptable sources of verification of the project indicators? For
indicators usually used in transport infrastructure projects, the only possible
sources are beneficiary’s own data and/or traffic surveys carried out by or for the
beneficiary. All statistics provided by external sources cover the entire network,
not individual lines. May it be the feasibility study of the project or other
documents explaining the ex-ante and ex-post verification methodology?
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Part D
4. D.2.3 and other points – how detailed should the technical description be? Does it
have to include detailed information about technologies used and parameters of the
infrastructure under construction? E.g. is it enough to describe an activity as
“modernization of Line A from point X to point Y” or should we list all the elements:
“main track on subsection B1 will be built from 601E tracks on slabs with SB-type links
while ground is stabilized by geo-nets, on subsection B2 these will be…” and so on with
very detailed technical parameters.
5. D.5.3 – how much information should be provided in the “outline of alternative
options”? Do we just indicate which option was selected, or should we present the full
option analysis?
6. D.5.4 and D.5.5 – please explain whether the scope of these sections pointed out in
the Guide is a minimum scope of information and it is recommendable to supplement it
by additional information or it is scope preset to facilitate the comparability of projects
for the reviewer.
12
2014-10-24
Guide for applicants
Overall question
Guide for Applicants, p. 5 – what is the “comparative EU added value” of
the project? Please explain what is the measure/parameter of added value
(is it ENPV or ERR)? If only a qualitative assessment is required please
specify features which are decisive for the added value.
Wniosek aplikacyjny CEF
Application Form
Zarząd Morskich Portów
Szczecin i Świnoujście
13
2014-10-24
Wniosek aplikacyjny
Overall questions
1.
Can the part A be submitted in advance of the submission of the rest
of the application and respective annexes and other supporting
documents?
2.
Will letters of support signed by entities related to the project be
viewed as items increasing the value/quality of the project?
3.
Ports in Poland, although having the form of joint-stock companies,
are public entities as majority of their shares are owned by the state.
As such they do not need to supply the Financial Capacity Check or
do they?
4.
When/where will the DG Regio’s cost-benefit analysis method, as
suggested to applicants from the cohesion countries, be available?
Inteligent Transport Systems (ITS)
(zakres wsparcia)
ITS - Scope of support
Ministerstwo
Infrastruktury i Rozwoju
14
2014-10-24
ITS – scope of support
Urban nodes
With regard to grants for works on road networks, Article 10 of
Regulation no 1316/2013 indicates the funding rates for road
actions in the case of Member States with no railway network or
with an isolated network without long-distance rail freight
transport and for actions supporting cross-border road sections.
But what funding rates should be applied in the case of road
actions (works) in urban nodes in Member States which have
railway networks established?
Inteligent Transport Systems (ITS)
(zakres wsparcia)
ITS - Scope of support
Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg
Krajowych i Autostrad
15
2014-10-24
ITS
Overall questions
1. The territorial scope of implementation
•
Will the project, that includes all of core sections TEN-T managed by
GDDKiA which ensures its effectiveness as well as continuity of service,
be covered by the CEF funding or co-financing can be granted to crossborder sections only?
•
Due to the fact that ITS projects are implementations of electronic
technology and services that are not necessarily physically associated to
specific area or network what costs will be eligible from this perspective?
(eg. within the project will be set up a database that collects data that
includes events and hazardous situation possibly on the entire national
road network, not just TEN-T and transmits such data to other service
providers)
ITS
Overall questions
2. The planned amount of funding for ITS in road projects
within the next contest (allocation available from Cohesian
Fund in ITS road sector in 2015 call)
•
The project cost is initially estimated at € 250 million (expecting cofunding at the level of € 200 million). Is the funding of ITS road
projects within the national envelopes - foreseen in the next CEF call
in 2015 - enough to subsidize the project ?
16
2014-10-24
ITS
Overall questions
3. Eligibility
•
The project includes implementation of ITS equipment on alternative
roads to the main arterial roads in order to provide full functionality of the
system, eg. by conducting diversion of traffic in case of road blockage.
Will it be eligible?
•
Is it possible to provide some functionality through the purchase of
external services (eg. purchase of real – time data of traffic instead of
implementing equipment to collect traffic data on our own) ?
•
Will the works, carried out by the consultant targeted on the scope wider
than the project itself (where all of products are necessary for the
implementation of the project), be fully eligible?
•
Will be eligible training of staff to raise competencies for better
supervision of the implementation of the project?
ITS
Overall questions
4. From which perspective the scope of the project should be
defined in the application form – whether by the indication of
location of each device or by the services provided by the
system for the end-user point of view?
5. What criteria will be taken under consideration to verify
continuity of ITS services in the European dimension.
6. What will be the criteria taken for the evaluation of road ITS
projects within the next CEF contest?
17
2014-10-24
ITS
Overall questions
7. The organization of the project in the application process: in
what way is best to apply for funding to meet the requirement
of the Work Programme requiring support of at least 2 Member
States? In other words, what is more appreciated either
submitting applications within the framework of international
consortia or is it enough to request as an individual,
comprising letters of support, cooperation agreements, etc. in
ITS between the beneficiary and the other countries?
Innowacje
(zakres wsparcia)
Innovation – scope of support
Ministerstwo
Infrastruktury i Rozwoju
18
2014-10-24
Innovation – scope of support)
Overall question
If under the objective 2 of MAP ( priority 1- innovation in all
transport modes) project which aims to draw up the
measuring and testing platform which allow to verify from air
the radio communicating canters working for analogue and
digital system of air traffic management, by using the
unmanned vehicle air (UVA), can be realized? In Europe
similar solution don't exist.
Porty Morskie
(scope of support)
Maritime Ports – scope of support
Zarząd Morskich Portów
Szczecin i Świnoujście S.A.
19
2014-10-24
Maritime Ports
Overall question
1. Annex 1 to the Multiannual Call – it is stated there that “Support
is not given to super structure, maintenance (including
maintenance by dredging), dedicated infrastructure and facilities
for cruise ships. Furthermore, the expansion or construction of
new cargo or passenger terminals is not covered.” Shall this
exclusion be read with relation to super structure and/or
maintenance and/or dedicated infrastructure and/or facilities for
cruise ships and/or expansion or construction of new cargo or
passenger terminals? Furthermore how does the Commission
understand the terms “dedicated infrastructure”?
Maritime Ports
Overall question
2. With relation to the above, how does the Commission understand the
“expansion of a cargo terminal”? Can we understand that the
modernisation and adjustment of an existing terminal to new technologic
solutions (eg. intermodality) within the existing boundaries of given
terminal is not considered as expansion?
3. Within the ferry terminal area there exists a long term car-park for
passenger cars. The car-park attendant lives in a building standing on the
grounds owned by the port authority. Due to the intended change of use
of that piece of land from long term passenger car-park to intermodal
operations there is a need to respectively convert the area. This will
require resettlement of living quarter occupant to a new place. Will costs
related to resettlement of that occupant (namely purchase of one flat) be
considered as eligible?
20
2014-10-24
Maritime Ports
Overall question
8. Annex I to regulation 1316/2013 “List of pre-identified projects”
- what is understood under “port interconnections”? Does the
investment aimed at adjusting a port terminal to intermodal
operations (namely works, within boundaries of a given port
terminal, improving rail connection with rail lines leading to a port
and modernisation and works on existing port infrastructure
allowing new intermodal operation technology, i.e. intermodal
train loading-unloading rail-lanes as well as manoeuvre areas and
intermodal units waiting areas) fall under this term?
Maritime Ports
Overall question
(1)
9. Having in mind Annex I to regulation 1316/2013 “List of pre-identified projects”
and Annex 1 to MAWP 2014 CEF Transport Call 2014 for Cohesion Countries
“Priority Pre-identified projects on the corridors of the core network”, does the
project proposed by port infrastructure owner and manager (albeit not an operator)
and aimed at adapting the existing ferry terminal to intermodal operations and
composed of the following main activities be eligible for co-financing under
Funding Objective 4 Priority “Core Network Corridors”:
•
Purchase of one ferry berth that so far has been rented by the port and for
many years used for ferry operations as an integral part of a ferry terminal;
•
Connecting two adjacent berths (the already owned one and the purchased
one) and creation of a single, bigger berth enabling berthing the Baltic biggest
ferries;
•
Deepening of the port basin alongside the new berth;
21
2014-10-24
Maritime Ports
Overall question
(2)
9. Having in mind Annex I to regulation 1316/2013 “List of pre-identified projects” and
Annex 1 to MAWP 2014 CEF Transport Call 2014 for Cohesion Countries “Priority Preidentified projects on the corridors of the core network”, does the project proposed by
port infrastructure owner and manager (albeit not an operator) and aimed at adapting the
existing ferry terminal to intermodal operations and composed of the following main
activities be eligible for co-financing under Funding Objective 4 Priority “Core Network
Corridors”:
•
building two rail lines of 210m each within the existing ferry terminal and
connecting them with the rail line connecting the port with the TEN-T Corridor.
The lines will be used to unload-load intermodal trains;
•
Adapting and modernisation of existing open operational areas to intermodal
unit manoeuvre and waiting areas;
•
Reconstruction of the road and rail layouts within the terminal area and in
interconnection with the ones leading to it and thus allowing for smooth
intermodal operations.
Zakres wsparcia
Overall questions
Ministerstwo
Infrastruktury i Rozwoju
22
2014-10-24
Scope of support
Overall question
Is it possible to support projects from objective 4 (Cohesion
Fund allocation) and from Objective 1-3 MAP (general
allocation) in the same time with different level of EU
contribution (max 85% under Cohesion Fund envelope and
max 20%/ 50% under general allocation)?
23