Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III'
C 214/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 3. 11. The involvement of democratically chosen bodies is important to the creation and acceptance of a single internal market. For this reason, and bearing in mind the comments made in point 3. 1, the proposal for a directive is preferable to the JAA procedure. The Commission has satisfied this concern. Brussels, 29 April 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III’ (98/C 214/11) On 24 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 129 D of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Whitworth. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 117 votes in favour, with 8 abstentions. 1. Introduction and background The trans-European networks (TEN) derive from 1. 1. Article 129b of the Treaty. 1. 2. Article 129c requires the establishment of a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of TEN as well as the identification of projects of common interest. Decision No 1692/96/EC (1) established such 1. 3. guidelines for the development of the TEN. The charac- teristics of the networks in the various transport modes were identified in Articles 9 to 17 of the decision. The specific network schemes proposed for the road, rail, inland waterway, airports and combined transport networks were illustrated by a series of maps contained in Annex I to the decision. Annex II contained Criteria and Specifications for Projects of Common Interest while Annex III listed the fourteen projects adopted by the European Council at its meeting in Essen in December 1994. The characteristics for the development of sea- 1. 4. ports were dealt with only briefly in the decision and no specific network scheme for them was contained in Annex I. In a statement attached to the decision the Commission announced its intention to submit in 1997, after consulting the interested parties and the Member States concerned, a proposal for port projects using an approach similar to that followed for airports. Extensive consultation has taken place and the 1. 5. Commission has acquired a considerable amount of relevant data from the four main maritime regions. In its current proposal it seeks to amend the 1996 Decision to incorporate its criteria and specifications for seaport projects and at the same time to amend the decision’s proposals in respect of inland ports and intermodal terminals. 2. The Commission’s proposals 2. 1. General (1) OJ L 228, 9. 9. 1996, p. 1. the 2. 1. 1. position of seaports, as well as that of inland ports and The Commission has concluded that 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/41 intermodal terminals, needs to be specified more clearly in the guidelines in order to help achieve the multimodal objectives of the TEN. It perceives the TEN as a multimodal infrastructure network which should pro- gressively combine and integrate the different transport modes and national network and affirms that seaports, inland ports and transhipment facilities are prerequisite to the functioning of intermodal transport within such a network. It notes that the 1996 decision did not include specific criteria for the development and location of the main transport modes or interconnection points in the TEN. 2. 1. 2. The Commission seeks to rectify these omis- sions in its proposals to amend the 1996 decision but limits its amendments at this stage to the integration of seaports, inland ports and inland connection points in intermodal freight transport. The Commission’s document lists specific 2. 1. 3. amendments to the 1996 decision but it is impossible to ascertain the precise nature of their proposals without relating these to the original text. Accordingly the following paragraphs attempt to summarize the current proposals in a logical order sector by sector. 2. 2. Seaports 2. 2. 1. The proposed replacement of Article 12 of the 1996 decision (Article 1(3) of the proposal) states that seaports in the TEN shall include the approximately 300 ports which are open to all commercial traffic and which are identified in the new outline plans contained in the revised Annex I. It stipulates that such seaports shall have: — a total annual traffic volume of not less than one million tonnes freight, or — not less than 200 000 international passengers (with a derogation in the case of islands in the Aegean and Ionian Seas), or — provide connections between the land links of the TEN. It also stipulates that seaport and seaport-related projects of common interest shall comply with the criteria and specifications in Annex II. The main change to the criteria and specifi- 2. 2. 2. cations of common interest for seaports contained in Section 5 of Annex II is the addition of a clause providing that special attention should be paid to projects for: — the development of short sea and sea-river shipping; — upgrading port infrastructure particularly on islands and in peripheral regions; — improving hinterland access particularly through rail and inland waterway; — development of management and information sys- tems. 2. 2. 3. There is a specific provision that investment in port infrastructure is not eligible for TEN financial aid except where it falls within the criteria for the development of combined transport. The Commission states that this is due to the strong competition between ports. 2. 3. Inland ports 2. 3. 1. The proposed amendment to Article 11 of the 1996 Decision (Article 1(2) (b) of the proposal) stipulates that inland ports in the TEN shall be: — open to all commercial traffic; — identified in the plan in Annex I; — interconnected with other transport routes per Annex I; — equipped with transhipment installations for intermodal transport. 2. 3. 2. There is an amended plan of Inland Waterways and Inland Ports (7. 2) in Annex I which identifies 35 specific inland ports. 2. 3. 3. Accordingly the criteria for inland ports con- tained in paragraph A of Section 4 of Annex II is deleted although the categories of infrastructure projects have been retained. 2. 4. Combined transport 2. 4. 1. The proposed amendments to Article 14 of the 1996 Decision (Article 1(4) of the proposal) redefine terminals for intermodal transhipment (deleting the reference to transhipment involving shipping routes) and specify that such terminals shall be: — open to all commercial traffic; — located on or linked to a rail corridor as per Annex I; — equipped with transhipment installations for intermodal transport. They are also required to comply with the criteria and specifications in Section 7 of Annex II, in the third indent of which (calling for the adaptation of port areas to develop or improve transfers in combined transport) the reference to road transport has been deleted. C 214/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 2. 4. 2. The two plans 7. 1. A and 7. 1. B in Annex I identifying railway corridors for combined transport are replaced by four new plans 7. 1. 0 to 7. 1. 4 showing some 210 intermodal terminals. The Commission notes that, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, the outline plans do not pinpoint exact terminal sites but identify terminal transhipment areas. 2. 5. Rail networks Article 10(4) which specifies the characteristics 2. 5. 1. of the rail network and Section 3 of Annex II are amended to include references to the development of new railway services in particular on the basis of Trans-European Freight Freeways. 2. 6. Projects adopted by the European Council 2. 6. 1. In the list contained in Annex III the Multi- modal Link Portugal/Spain with the rest of Europe has been substituted for the Motorway Lisbon-Valladolid in keeping with the decision of the European Council at Dublin in December 1996. 3. Previous Committee opinions 3. 1. The Committee adopted an Opinion in Novem- ber 1994 on the Proposal for the Decision on the trans-European network which finally became Decision 1692/96/EC (1). While this opinion was of necessity wide-ranging its section dealing with ports made a number of specific points as follows: — ports and maritime transport are a key consideration for the development of the TEN; — ports development projects should go hand in hand with the TEN links planned for other modes; — proposals for the development of short sea shipping were eagerly awaited; — plans must not lead to distortions of competition between individual ports; — inland ports will play a major role in any intermodal master plan. transport modes. It also welcomed the Commission’s proposals for improving port infrastructure and port efficiency and in particular advocated the upgrading the role of small and medium-sized ports. 3. 3. In a series of opinions [the latest being that adopted in October 1997 on the Communication from the Commission entitled Intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the European Union (3)] the Com- mittee has attached great importance to the improvement and extension of intermodal transport and has recog- nized the importance of ports in any intermodal network. 3. 4. In its Opinion on Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways adopted in January 1998 the Committee welcomed the Commission’s proposals and saw the creation of the freeways as an important step towards revitalizing the European railways. 4. General Comments 4. 1. As already noted it is particularly difficult to assess the overall effect of the Commission’s proposals in the form in which they are presented. The Committee the document should reproduce the believes that amended Decision in its entirety with the proposed changes indicated by typestyle or underlining. 4. 2. The Committee generally welcomes the Com- mission’s recognition of the important part which ports must play in the European transport network and the vital necessity for them to have effective links with other transport modes. Consistent with its previous opinions the Committee also welcomes the Commission’s empha- sis on the development of intermodal facilities and its identification of critical corridors and connecting points. 4. 3. The Commission approach is essentially a frag- mented one, dealing as it does with each mode separately and in specific terms. The Committee perceives the necessity for the development of an overall strategy relating the proposals in the various modes to the purpose and objectives of the TEN as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the 1996 decision. Without such a strategy a conclusive evaluation of the TEN will not be possible. 3. 2. In its Opinion on The development of short sea shipping in Europe (2) adopted in January 1996 the integration of short sea Committee urged the full shipping in the TEN as an equal partner with other 4. 4. Although there are references to coastal and short sea shipping in Article 12 and the amended Section 5 of Annex II there is insufficient recognition of the contribution which the development of these modes (1) OJ C 397, 31. 12. 1994, p. 23. (2) OJ C 97, 1. 4. 1996, p. 15. (3) OJ C 19, 31. 1. 1998, p. 25. 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/43 can make to the concept of sustainable mobility and the Committee believes that the proposals are an inadequate response to the thrust of its Opinion on the development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe. pete for traffic to and from a common hinterland, the port transport industry is particularly sensitive to competition between ports. 4. 5. The Committee is unhappy with what appears to be the almost total elimination of road transport from the development of seaports and combined transport in the context of the TEN network. While fully supporting the development of intermodal transport as an essential factor in the maintenance of sustainable mobility it suggests that the Commission cannot ignore the fact that a very substantial proportion of the goods passing through Community ports is currently carried by road and that road transport projects must have some part to play in the integration of ports and terminals in the TEN. 5. Specific comments 5. 1. Seaports 5. 1. 1. The Committee believes that the thresholds in terms of freight tonnage or international passenger traffic specified in new Article 12. 2 should be applied with some flexibility consistent with other criteria being met. There is a danger that if the thresholds are applied too rigidly smaller ports with a real potential contribution to the development of coastal and short sea shipping may not qualify for development. Further, in regard to sub paragraph b) there are other areas where domestic traffic between islands or to the mainland is significant. The provision in new paragraph 4 of Section 5 5. 1. 2. of Annex II, which states that infrastructure investment within the port area is not eligible for Community financial aid in the field of TEN except for projects of common interest concerning combined transport in port areas as defined in Annex II Section 7, gives rise to a number of concerns. It would appear from this provision that 5. 1. 3. involving combined infrastructure development not transport may be eligible if they are located just outside a port area but not within it; this may give rise to anomalies and the artificial locating of projects in order to maximize eligibility for financial aid. Further, the absence of any definition of infrastructure may give rise to ambiguities. 5. 1. 4. There could well be scope for the varied and inconsistent application of the criteria for ports and port related projects of common interest as defined in Annex II Section 5. This could lead to significant competitive advantage/disadvantage between ports selected for such projects and those not. As the Com- mission recognizes, because there are many instances where ports (funded individually not nationally) com- 5. 1. 5. Some port interests feel that on this account Community financial aid might more equitably be directed towards feasibility studies for port develop- ments. On the other hand, it is in the general interest of the furtherance of the TEN objectives that the financing of port development projects of major and significant proportions should not be inhibited by rigid bureaucratic rules. The Committee suggests that the Commission should give further thought to this difficult aspect and to the practical effects in particular instances of the adoption of its present proposal. 5. 2. Combined Transport The proposed amendment to the second indent 5. 2. 1. of paragraph 1 of Article 14 eliminates the existing reference to shipping routes in the context of terminals which provide installations for intermodal transhipment between various modes. The Committee queries this omission and consistent with its general comment in paragraph 4. 4 above believes that coastal and short sea shipping should be specifically highlighted in the characteristics of the TEN combined transport network. 5. 2. 2. In Annex II Section 7 it is suggested that the criteria for projects of common interest should qualify the list of projects in Annex I rather than be additional to it. 5. 2. 3. In these criteria there is a specific reference in the 2nd indent to the setting-up of fixed or mobile transhipment equipment. There should be a similar reference in Annex II Section 5. 3 if maritime transport is not to be at a disadvantage in this respect. In the 3rd indent dealing with the adaptation 5. 2. 4. of port areas to develop or improve transfers between sea transport and other modes in combined transport the reference to road transport has been eliminated. The Committee affirms that the development of the intermodal concept cannot be achieved without a balanced degree of participation of road transport. There are many instances where a project in a port area to improve transfers between sea and road might be appropriate — for example the development of road access to a port installation circumventing a city centre. The Committee therefore queries this omission. 5. 3. Rail networks 5. 3. 1. The Committee approves the amendment of Article 10(4) and Section 3 of Annex II to include references to the development of new railway services C 214/44 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 in particular on the basis of Trans-European Freight Freeways. 6. Conclusion 5. 4. Projects adopted by the European Council The Committee notes that in the list contained 5. 4. 1. in Annex III the Multimodal Link Portugal/Spain has been substituted for the Motorway Lisbon-Valladolid in keeping with the decision of the European Council at Dublin in December 1996 and favours the development of a multimodal link. Brussels, 29 April 1998. The Committee would welcome the presentation 6. 1. in the near future of an overview of the entire trans- European transport network. 6. 2. This should be followed by an assessment based on setting targets in particular for intermodal net- working. The Economic and Social Committee would also like to be consulted on this matter as well as on the reports which the Commission is required by Articles 18 and 21 to make on the implementation and revision of the Guidelines. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector (1998-2002) and connected measures’ (98/C 214/12) On 4 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr von der Decken. At its 354th plenary session of 29 and 30 April 1998 (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 115 votes in favour and three abstentions. 1. Introduction The proposal for a Council Decision contains an 1. 1. explanatory memorandum and seven annexes. — Annex I contains the proposal for a Decision; — Annex II deals with the financial aspects of the first area of action, comprising the horizontal measure, prospective analysis and market monitoring; — Annex III deals with the financial aspects of the second area of action, the horizontal measure cur- rently carried out under the Synergy programme, promoting international cooperation in the energy sector; — Annex IV outlines the thematic programme, pro- motion of renewable energy sources and its financial aspects. This thematic programme was formerly part of Altener II; — Annex V comprises the action area, energy efficiency and reduction of CO2 emissions, and its financial aspects. This thematic programme was formerly part of SAVE II; — Annex VI deals with the Carnot programme; — Annex VII outlines the financial aspects of cooper- ation with the New Independent States, e. g. with regard to the transport of radioactive materials and the fight against illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. The aim of the energy framework programme is 1. 2. to ensure the coherence and efficiency of energy policy