Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Connecting the Union's transport infrastructure network to its neighbours - towards a cooperative pan-European transport network policy'
27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/75 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Connecting the Union’s transport infrastructure network to its neighbours — towards a cooperative pan-European transport network policy’ (98/C 129/19) On 30 April 1997 the European Commission consulted the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the EC Treaty, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Transport and Communications, charged by the Committee with the preparation of its work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 16 December 1997 (rapporteur: Mr Konz). The Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 26 February 1998). 1. Introduction The Commission communication, 1. 1. issued on 23 April 1997, was designed to provide the Pan-European Transport Conference, held in Helsinki on 23 to 25 June 1997, with a working document setting out strategies and options. It is of the utmost importance, particularly to would-be members of the European Union, to define a pan-European approach to transport networks with a view to linking EU and neighbouring transport infrastructure. 1. 2. The Commission communication calls for the creation, in order to meet the needs of the 21st century, of a continent-wide transport network covering the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEEC), the European countries of the former Soviet Union and the EU’s Mediterranean partners. With this in mind, the Commission has drawn up a five-point action plan: — detailing pan-European corridors and transport areas as a framework for ensuring efficient transport services with all EU neighbours, including those in the Mediterranean basin; — the extension of the trans-European transport net- works (TEN-Tr) to the applicant countries as part of the pre-accession process: — a common European approach to transport tech- nology throughout the pan-European network; — the encouragement of intelligent transport tech- nologies (e. g. the application of computer tech- nology, automatic signalling) throughout the net- work; — closer cooperation on research and technology. 1. 3. The establishment of a pan-European network partnership bringing together all the relevant parties: the European Union, Member States, other countries concerned, international financial institutions, and the private sector is the best way of enacting the comprehen- sive approach to the pan-European network proposed by the Commission. The partnership should also focus on financial, 1. 4. institutional and legislative matters. 2. General comments The early issue of the Commission’s communi- 2. 1. cation has of course meant that it was unable to take account of the outcome of the Helsinki conference. As a result, the contents of various background reports and opinions, together with the final declaration issued at the close of the Helsinki Conference could not be reflected. 2. 2. The Committee nonetheless expressly welcomes the Commission’s communication on development of a cooperative pan-European transport network policy designed to link the EU’s transport infrastructure net- work to neighbouring states. The Committee cannot, however, fail to notice the fact that there is a considerable divergence between the actual situation and the goals set out, particularly as regards project-funding. The broadening of the approach based solely on the establish- ment of corridors to embrace the establishment of pan-European transport areas, does, in particular, rep- resent a qualitative leap, in the Committee’s view. 2. 3. The strategy of adopting an overall approach, taking account of the need to create mobility which is both sustainable and environmentally-compatible bears out the Committee’s long-held standpoint. A socio-economic assessment and a strategic environ- mental impact assessment must underlie any pan- European network policy. These two processes should therefore be included in the five-point action plan. 2. 4. The Commission bases its views on the results of the pan-European transport conferences held in Crete (14 to 16 March 1994: agreement on corridors) and on the objectives and principles to be adopted at the C 129/76 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 impending Helsinki Conference (23 to 25 June 1997: updated corridors). 2. 5. As one of the promoters of the pan-European transport conferences — the value of which it would continue to underline — the Committee points out that the various final declarations made at the conferences and the attendant objectives and principles do not constitute a binding political framework. The Commission does, however, refer frequently to the outcome of these broad consultations involving governments, parliaments, EU institutions, international organizations and bodies and socio-economic interest groups. The results of the consultations should therefore provide a sound foundation for a common European approach. Viewed in this light the outcome of these conferences could thus be construed as an individual political commitment by the respective signatories. 2. 6. The Committee’s comments therefore cover not only the Commission communication under review, but also the statistics submitted by the Commission (Transport DG) to the pan-European transport confer- ence in Helsinki. These figures provide a precise defi- nition of the various corridors, objectives, timeframes for concluding the infrastructure improvements (between 2010 and 2015) and estimates of costs (the total cost is put at up to ECU 70 billion). 2. 7. However welcome the ambitious nature of the individual projects may be, those holding positions of political responsibility should, in the Communities view, always bear in mind that a great deal of time will be required between the planning and implementing stages of the transport networks and that funding is very frequently the biggest problem in this context. The Commission estimates that it will cost ECU 400 billion to implement all the projects of interest to the EU. Even if EU funding is provided for this purpose in the EU’s multi-year indicative programmes, these sums cover only a modest proportion of the enormous costs of building new transport infrastructures. Substantial amounts will therefore need to be found each year from the public purse and, where appropriate, from private sources in the EU and relevant neighbouring states to fund the transport network projects. These states should introduce special headings in their budgets for this purpose. Account should also be taken of the rapid growth in private transport in the CEEC which is causing a further increase in the number of cars on the roads of EU Member States. The ESC feels that stepping up the pace of re-equipment of the rail network in the CEEC (cf. the Federal German Railway Company (DB) in the new German Länder) could provide a cheap and, above all, a quicker solution to the problem of improving transport capacity, safety and speed in these states. 2. 8. The process of economic and political reform in the CEEC is in full swing. By virtue of the respective Europe Agreements the countries seeking to join the EU have already made considerable progress in narrowing the gap between themselves and the EU norm. In this context the ESC considers that more rapid progress will have to be made by these states incorporating the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the areas addressed by the Commission (particularly the socio-economic field and the environment). As the targeted infrastructure improvements are to be completed between 2010 and 2015, the EU standards should be complied with much earlier, given the work which has to be started beforehand. 2. 9. The Committee has always clearly stated that a pan-European transport policy can only ever be success- ful if it succeeds in setting in train the necessary structural change — particularly in the CEECs — with the participation of the social partners and if it succeeds in carrying out this operation against a background of stability. This key demand of the ESC was incorporated in the Helsinki Declaration through the inclusion of ‘consul- tation with the socio-economic groups’ as one of the ten basic principles underlying future cooperation in transport policy at pan-European level. The ‘network partnership’ approach may be regarded as providing a good basis for putting the above-mentioned principle into practice. This demand is also raised in the Commission’s communication but insufficient account is taken of it by the Commission. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. Pan-European corridors and transport areas 3. 1. 1. As the political action framework transcends the borders of the EU, the Commission rightly highlights the need for cooperation with the UN Economic Com- mission for Europe (UN-ECE) and the European Confer- ence of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). The regional working groups operating within the framework of the G-24 group are also important, particularly in the area of international financial institutions. 3. 1. 2. The Committee takes the view that the pro- visions set out in the Commission’s communication stipulating that all construction projects have to be economically viable and provide a minimum economic return of 10 % are out of step with Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996 on common guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network (TEN-Tr). The abovementioned decision lays down, in particular, socially acceptable, safety-orientated conditions. It fur- ther specifies that projects must make a contribution towards strengthening economic and social cohesion, but, regrettably, labour market objectives are wholly disregarded in this context. 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/77 If a legally binding instrument comes into force at pan-European level, the abovementioned EU objectives would also have to be applied at this level. Special attention should be paid in this respect to islands and remote areas. 3. 1. 3. The Committee thus also supports the Com- mission’s efforts to promote shipping in the Mediterrane- an area and to seek to establish, in the long term, an overall approach to planning an effective transport infrastructure in the Mediterranean area and the states bordering on the Mediterranean. 3. 1. 4. The principle of subsidiarity is to be applied here and steps should be taken to ensure that the members of the public concerned are informed and consulted in respect of the assessment of transport networks. In this context, the Committee would once again highlight the importance of consulting the socio- economic interest groups, who should be involved from the discussion and planning stages. 3. 1. 5. The Commission’s communication fails to provide a clear definition of the ‘multimodal’ criterion. Does this term imply that parallel infrastructures should be constructed for the various modes of transport? Or are we simply dealing here with transfers from one mode of transport to another, using suitable platforms. Transport infrastructures are designed to last many years and are very expensive. They also leave a lasting scar on the natural environment and are becoming increasingly unacceptable to the general public. It is absolutely essential to avoid duplicate investment in parallel infrastructures. The Committee is therefore in favour of a more intermodal approach and more intermodal freight transport (1). 3. 2. Extending the TEN approach (2) 3. 2. 1. The Committee welcomes the approach advo- cated by the Commission. Once again, however, as was the case with the EU’s trans-European transport network, the key question is: how is it to be funded? The TEN approach can barely be funded within the EU countries and there are much greater shortfalls in funding in the applicant states. This fact has also been recognized by the Commission, which on 10 September 1997 issued a Communication on public-private partnerships in trans-European transport (1) See the ESC Opinion of 29 October 1997 on the Communi- cation from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the European Union: a systems approach to freight transport — strategies and actions to enhance efficiency, services and sustainability’ (COM(97) 243 final) (OJ C 19, 31. 1. 1998, p. 1). (2) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9. 9. 1996, p. 1). ESC Opinion: OJ C 397, 31. 12. 1994, p. 23. network projects (3); the Committee endorsed the com- munication in an opinion adopted on 25 February 1998. 3. 2. 2. The networks to and via non-EU countries, together with the interconnection points between the different modes of transport are of reciprocal interest and should be given priority. The applicant states should enjoy a special position in this respect. There is no doubt that the inclusion of these states in TEN-Tr planning will complicate overall planning at EU level and the issue of funding. Given the variety of planning processes involved (corri- dors, areas, and Transport Infrastructure Needs Assess- ment (TINA) and TEN), the ESC calls for much closer coordination of project planning and implementation. The Committee also urges that the selected infrastructure projects benefit from more generous joint financing through the provision of EU grants, subject to the maximum harmonization of technical and construction standards. 3. 3. European approach to transport technology Interoperability between networks needs to be 3. 3. 1. guaranteed in the interests of enabling optimal use (from an economic point of view and in the context of environmental compatibility) to be made of European transport networks. Only if such a proviso is met will all types of transport — both passenger and goods-transport, including intermodal goods trans- port — be able to make full and unfettered use, without delay, of existing and planned infrastructure. Interoperability involves both technical aspects (stan- dardization measures) and legislative and regulatory aspects. These two side of the coin as far as interoperabi- lity is concerned must be interlinked and coordinated. 3. 3. 2. Interoperability between networks is a ‘sine qua non’ if the various transport undertakings, are to provide different services in the safest form, offering the best value for money; interoperability and free, non-discriminatory access to all transport infrastructure are therefore the top priorities for the guidelines for trans-European transport networks. 3. 4. The intelligent use of transport research transport networks — 3. 4. 1. As, in particular, the intermodal linking of telematics systems at pan-European level (4) is still inadequately developed, the ESC urges the Commission (3) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on public-private partnerships in trans-European transport network projects (COM(97) 453 final). (4) See the ESC’s own-initiative opinion on the use of telematics systems in intermodal transport at pan-European level (OJ C 66, 3. 3. 1997, p. 27). C 129/78 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 to pay greater attention to this aspect in the action plan attached to the communication (see point 1. 2 above). Steps should also be taken to ensure that the relevant safety standards are met. Telematics technology could help to achieve more rational transport flows and their practical implemen- tation whilst taking account of a) the human factor as such and b) personnel implications. 3. 4. 2. Clearly the existing approaches should be used and further promoted. There are doubts, however, as to whether simply transferring the technologies used in the EU states to neighbouring states, or marketing the technology in those countries is the right approach. If difficulties arise in applying these technologies in the neighbouring states, an appraisal should first be made of the extent to which the use of such technologies is desirable. 3. 4. 3. The report drawn up by DG VII — Transport for the pan-European transport conference in Helsinki, on the intelligent use of transport systems is a step in the right direction in this respect (SEC(97) 1227 — cf. point 2. 2 on transport research and technological development — RTD). The DG VII report considers how the quality of European transport services, including intermodal services, can be improved. 3. 5. Development of a Europe-wide transport net- works partnership 3. 5. 1. Since a number of parliaments, governments, institutions and private undertakings are interested in the projects, it is particularly important to establish a regulatory and administrative framework. Lately the emphasis is being placed more and more on on-the-spot coordination, all possible steps should thus be taken to involve regional authorities, together with the socio-economic groups concerned, in the partnership, in addition to the relevant national authorities. The Committee would therefore once again highlight the importance of developing consultative machinery to permit dialogue with the social partners. 3. 5. 2. As regards the application in the regions and states concerned of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the coordination of procedures for awarding contracts, the Committee takes the view that an appropriate regulatory framework will have to be established for these states. This is the only way to prevent EU undertakings, with their greater expertise, from being the only firms considered for major contracts. Brussels, 26 February 1998. 4. Final observations 4. 1. Structured dialogue in the context of a cooperative pan-European transport network policy In the own-initiative opinion (1) which it issued 4. 1. 1. prior to the Helsinki Conference, the ESC considered in detail the possible form of consultative machinery as part of a cooperative pan-European transport network policy. Fixed structures are not the decisive factor when it comes to the establishment of machinery for dialogue between the socio-economic groups concerned. Different forms of consultation, including procedures which are of limited duration or cover specific issues, could be introduced, provided that they are sufficiently binding. 4. 1. 2. Steering committees have been used as a means of implementing a pan-European transport network policy in respect of the various corridors or as a means of formulating the associated area concepts. Only representatives of governments and administrations serve on these committees. Why are the socio-economic groups not involved? Would it not be beneficial to make use of the expertise of the relevant transport enterprises, transport trade union members and transport users in this respect? The ESC takes the view that supplementary advisory bodies would be the appropriate vehicle for such consultations. This would provide a way of discussing the issues in still greater depth and opening up the debate from the government level to include the socio-economic groups. 4. 2. Formation of political will and directing it more effectively 4. 2. 1. The ESC takes the view that the communication under review represents an initial attempt on the part of the Commission to address the various aspects involved and to consult all interested parties. The ESC once again congratulates the Commission on this initiative. If we are, however, to carry further and 4. 2. 2. coordinate more effectively the formation of a political will, the Commission should issue an improved com- munication which should, include a stocktaking of the Helsinki Conference and build on the findings of the various working parties and the plenary assembly of this conference. in particular, (1) ESC Own-initiative Opinion on the Pan-European trans- port conference and the social dialogue — from Crete to Helsinki (OJ C 206, 15. 7. 1996, p. 96). The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS