Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC)'
13. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 293/9 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC)’ (1999/C 293/02) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC) (COM (1998) 614 final); having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 4 November 1998, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter; having regard to its Bureau decision of 13 January 1999 to direct Commission 3 for Trans-European Networks, Transport and Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Title XII (Trans-European networks) and Title XIV (Economic and social cohesion) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Title III, Article G, of the Union Treaty); having regard to Decision No. 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 60/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 3 on 15 April 1999 (rapporteurs: Mr Valca´rcel Siso and Mr Gustâv), adopted the following opinion at its 29th plenary session of 2 and 3 June 1999 (meeting of 3 June). 1. Introduction ‘Economic and social cohesion’, as enshrined in 1. 1. for Article B of achieving ‘economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable’ within the EU. is a key instrument the Union Treaty, To this end, the Treaty establishing the European 1. 2. Community made an explicit distinction between ‘economic (Article 2) and ‘the strengthening of and social cohesion’ economic and social cohesion’ (Article 3). The subsequent handling of these two concepts in the Treaty implies: • • that all ‘Community policies’ must always be conceived with consideration for their contribution to ‘economic and social cohesion’; that the Union also accepts the need to introduce specific policies aimed at ‘the strengthening of economic and social cohesion’. • • • the establishment of an area without internal frontiers, with free movement of goods, services and capital; the development of the conditions needed to make Com- munity industry competitive; the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, defined as ‘reducing disparities between the levels of development of the the various regions and the backwardness of least-favoured regions, including rural areas’ (to which the Amsterdam Treaty has added ‘least-favoured islands’). 1. 4. Pursuant to the objectives and specific tasks enshrined in EC Treaty Articles 129c and 129d, and following the co-decision procedure, on 23 July 1996 the European Parlia- ment and the Council approved Decision 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans- European transport network. The decision required the Euro- pean Commission to: 1. 3. If we analyse Title XII (Trans-European networks) of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Title XIV (Economic and social cohesion), we see that TEN (Trans-European Network) policy is a specific instrument designed to contribute directly to: • report every two years to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the guidelines described in the decision (Article 18); C 293/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 10. 1999 • submit to the European Parliament and the Council, every five years and for the first time before 1 July 1999, a report indicating whether the guidelines should be adapted; if necessary, this would be backed by appropriate proposals (Article 21). Lastly, as Article 129d of the EC Treaty requires that 1. 5. the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions be consulted prior to the adoption of Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), it follows that any adjustments and proposals under Article 21 of Decision 1692/96/EC must also be submit- ted to the two committees. 2. Procedure 2. 1. The 1998 report on the implementation of the guide- lines and priorities for the future of the TEN-T (hereafter referred to as the ‘1998 report’) states that as well as assessing the state of play, it also seeks to ‘launch a broad consultation process leading up to a white paper on revision to the guidelines in 1999’. 2. 2. Despite the rather general nature of these intentions, it is clear that the European Commission proposes to launch a procedure for revising the guidelines. This differs somewhat from the provisions of Article 21 of the decision, or at least represents a rather broad interpretation of them. In the light of the previous point, the Committee 2. 3. considers it vital that the European Commission give precise details of the stages, content and time-frame of the envisaged procedure for revising the guidelines. 3. The rationale behind the TEN-T: Competitiveness and accessibility 3. 1. The 1998 report states that the Community’s TEN-T policy is founded on two considerations, being based on Article 129b(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty: • • the vital role of efficient infrastructure for competitiveness, growth and employment in the long term (objectives of Deci- sion 1692/96/EC); of Article 2(2) transport (a) to (f) improvement of economic and social cohesion, ensuring that outlying regions are well connected to EU networks (h) of Article 2(2) of Deci- (objectives sion 1692/96/EC); here the report mentions the role played by the Cohesion Fund. and (g) Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport (1). 3. 3. However, the Committee is not convinced that the actual technical and economic development of Community TEN-T policy has managed to maintain a sufficient balance between the pursuit of competitiveness and the pursuit of cohesion. 3. 4. While the imbalance may have arisen for purely technical reasons, the Committee would nevertheless point out that policy implementation at present seems tied more to competitiveness-related criteria (traffic volumes, elimination of bottlenecks, interoperability, immediate profitability, etc. ) than to those related to economic and social cohesion (e. g. accessi- bility and long-term socio-economic profitability). Of course, the Community also contributes to the 3. 5. TEN-T via the Cohesion Fund. Here too, however, aid is subject to assessment criteria in which competitiveness indicators are an important factor. Another instance of 3. 6. the tendency of Community policies to focus on competitiveness is infrastructure pricing policy. This is undoubtedly an ad hoc instrument for addressing the problems of infrastructure capacity and wider economic competitiveness, but its value is more doubtful when it comes to addressing cohesion objectives and general shortcomings in accessibility. 3. 7. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee thinks that the Community institutions and Member States should strive to improve the balance of TEN-T policy (planning, technical side and administration). This means: • paying more attention to improvement of accessibility when evaluating projects; • remembering that accessibility not only involves access between the national networks and the TEN-T but also within the TEN-T. 3. 8. In short, the Committee thinks that TEN-T policy should add to its basic objectives that of creating a new ‘inter-regional accessibility map’. As the abovementioned recent communication on cohesion and transport points out, this map should help to reduce disparities between regions by laying down minimum accessibility thresholds (calculated using objective time/cost indicators) for travel to and from all parts of the EU. This second aim has recently been addressed in some 3. 2. detail in the European Commission’s communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social (1) COM(1998) 806 final. 13. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 293/11 The Committee considers that this is necessary because, 3. 9. although geographical distance is an immutable fact, it is unacceptable that outlying regions should face an additional burden as a result. The Committee stresses the considerable disadvantage represented by a lower ‘theoretical journey speed’ and higher ‘unit journey costs’, compared with the times and unit costs enjoyed by the EU’s heartlands and more central regions. 3. 10. In the medium to long term, the Committee sees no contradiction or incompatibility between competitiveness objectives and accessibility objectives because once investment and employment policies have taken effect, improvements in accessibility will also improve competitiveness potential. The Committee considers that a balance has to be struck between competitiveness and cohesion. Further to the above points, 3. 11. it should be noted that the 1998 report shows a somewhat unbalanced modal breakdown of Community grants in the two-year period 1996-1997: 4. Action over the two years 1996-1997 The introduction to the 1998 report states that the 4. 1. report covers ‘the main trends concerning TEN-T funding’. The Committee is pleased to see that the report considers it highly likely that the TEN-T set out in Decision 1692/96/EC will be completed by the 2010 target-date. 4. 2. This belief is strengthened by the fact that during the two-year period 1996-1997 a total of MECU 38 400 was invested in the TEN-T. The estimated total cost of the projects concerned is MECU 307 000. As the total investment needed in the TEN-T for the period to 2010 has been estimated at between MECU 400 000 and 500 000, it follows that the projects already under way account for between 60 % and In noting these figures, the 75 % of the estimated total. Committee congratulates the relevant Community bodies on their achievement. 4. 3. Here the Committee stresses the need, when monitor- ing the progress of the TEN-T, to keep a careful eye on the respective development of the road, rail and port networks. Closer coordination is vital in order to: • • the TEN-T budget line allocated 56,9 % of resources to rail and 20,9 % to traffic management schemes, with only 15,4 % for roads and 6,8 % for other modes; • • the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF together earmarked 55,2 % of resources to roads and 38,8 % to rail, with a token 0,2 % for traffic management schemes and 5,8 % for other modes. The allocation of resources under the TEN-T budget line, the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF essentially supports only road and rail. In future, Community grants should earmark more resources for environment-friendly waterways. encourage combined transport; steer Community policy towards a ‘client-based’ approach and consideration of transport as a ‘door-to-door’ oper- ation. The Committee also notes the positive efforts made 4. 4. hitherto, and would stress the need to promote the injection of private capital in the financing of transport infrastructure. This is not an easy issue, given the special nature of investment in this field (lengths of time and risks involved). However, the Community institutions could make a significant contribution by systematically gathering together and making available — to all Member States and socio-economic operators — experience in the following fields: The Committee considers that this breakdown of 3. 12. Community grants, together with certain other network developments described in the 1998 report, show that the problems which the TEN-T must address are not exactly the same throughout the EU. • project design typologies; • nature and formulation of the mutual guarantees required for the success of the PPPs. 3. 13. In the ‘heartland areas’, the key problems are more related to competitiveness and capacity, and the impact of external is very factors (particularly environmental ones) important. In the ‘outlying areas’, the problems of accessibility and cohesion are unavoidable, and the impact of external factors may be relatively less. 3. 14. The Committee thinks that this must be remembered when establishing the balance between competitiveness and accessibility criteria, in order to ensure that Community TEN-T policies strive to find the best solution for each particular area. 4. 5. Without overlooking the other measures, the Com- mittee stresses the particular importance of what the 1998 report terms ‘horizontal’ measures. In this context: • • efforts to attain interoperability — which must always take account of the practical economic impact of the problem — represent an important Community contribution to the development of the networks; support for R&D activities has a multiplier effect as it furthers the development of the networks, facilitates the generation of additional economies, and creates know-how which is vital for international competitiveness; C 293/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 10. 1999 • • the development of strategic environmental assessment methods must extend these assessments to all tiers of the transport system, by dovetailing the usual project-related considerations with new ones relating to ‘corridor’ and ‘network’; connections with third countries are vitally important, both to reduce the number of initial structural obstacles to any future enlargements of the EU and to embed the EU networks more firmly within world transport systems. 4. 11. indicators, for example: The study also came up with some more significant • for passenger transport: — the volume of population that can be reached from each area in less than 3 hours of travel; • for goods transport: that The Committee points out 4. 6. the 1998 report devotes little attention to interoperability problems and schemes, despite the fact that the European Commission and the Member States have made noteworthy headway in this field. Interoperability is also important enough to be specifi- cally mentioned in Article 129b(2) of the EC Treaty. 4. 7. The Committee feels that a clarification is needed regarding the report’s consideration of Community funding of TEN-T projects in the period 1996-1997. Under the term ‘contributions’, the report brackets together non-repayable grants (TEN-T budget, ERDF, Cohesion Fund) and fully repay- able loans (EIB etc. ). This could give a rather unbalanced picture of the role of the Community, and it would be helpful if the exact nature of the various instruments could be made clear each time they are mentioned. The Committee points out that, aside from the question 4. 8. of future guidelines, the 1998 report only gives an analytical evaluation and description of activities in 1996-1997. It does not assess or describe the objectives achieved, or the practical impact of the activities; nor are these issues to be addressed in the second, more detailed report. — the volume of population that can be reached from each area in different periods of time; — the direct costs of access from each area to a given volume of population. 4. 12. The Committee considers that the reports on the implementation of Community guidelines for the development of the TEN-T (Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC) and the future report on the case for adjusting the guidelines (Article 21) should assess the objectives achieved and the practical impact of Community TEN-T policy. The types of instrument used by the abovementioned 4. 13. study provide a useful example which could be refined and developed in the horizontal R&D measures. They: • underscore the case for a new inter-regional accessibility map of the EU (see point 3,8 above) that can be assessed using objective methods; • highlight an area in which the Committee feels that the reports scheduled under Decision 1692/96/EC need to make considerable headway. For instance, amongst the work done in this area, the 4. 9. Committee is aware that in 1996 the Commission received a study on territorial strategies in relation to the TEN-T. The study, which covered the EU-15 plus Switzerland and Norway, contained a mathematical simulation of the TEN-T and made a quantitative assessment of the current situation and the role which the TEN-T would play in the period up to 2010. 4. 14. Ultimately, the TEN-T guidelines only make sense insofar as they effectively help to boost the competitiveness of European industry and the EU’s economic and social cohesion. It is against these yardsticks that the guidelines must be rigorously assessed, in order to ascertain whether they need to be adjusted. 4. 10. indicators for the main TEN-T objectives: For assessment purposes, the study set a number of • contribution to the competitiveness of the EU economy; • contribution to EU cohesion; • contribution to sustainable mobility. 5. Future action regarding the Community guidelines (general points) 5. 1. The issues addressed in this chapter of the 1998 report suggest that there is a need to go right back to the planning process that preceded Decision 1692/96/EC. Here the Com- if mittee is merely pointing out a shortcoming which, addressed, could solve many of the problems raised in the report. 13. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 293/13 5. 2. The common TEN-T policy, as described in the EU Treaty, is very vague and does not explain what a TEN-T is or should be. Hence, in the Committee’s view, it is not possible to glean from the Treaty: • • that the TEN-T are based on a multimodal approach; that the constituent parts of the TEN-T can be rigorously evaluated. • whether the networks are to cover the whole EU, and comprise elements of the highest hierarchical and func- tional level; • whether the networks are made up of elements whose functions are of ‘common interest’ (a concept that has to be precisely defined and assessed for each project); • or whether they are simply an effective, coordinated and compatible means of promoting the development of transport infrastructure networks in the Member States. As far as the Committee is aware, no theoretical or 5. 3. operational definitions of the concept of a ‘TEN-T’ were established in the period from 1992 to 1996 (with the possible exception of the high-speed rail network and the combined transport and airport networks, which received more specific attention). Such definitions are vital in any network planning process. The Committee must also point out that, to the best of 5. 4. its knowledge, the planning and procedural stages prior to the approval of Decision 1692/96/EC also failed to arrive at a truly multimodal concept of TEN-T. 5. 5. It should be noted here that the European Commission suggested in its 1994 proposals that a multimodal approach was guaranteed by the mere fact of having network plans for all modes of transport. However, the Committee takes the view that simply juxtaposing single-mode networks that were designed separately is no way of securing multimodality. Multimodality requires that each modal network is initially designed or subsequently revised in conjunction with all the others, in the light of their complementary aspects and types of use. Thirdly, and again to the best of the Committee’s 5. 6. knowledge, there appears to be no precise definition or standard method for identifying and evaluating the common interest of a specific TEN-T project, despite the frequent use of the term ‘common interest’ (see, in particular, Article 7 of Decision 1692/96/EC). 5. 7. The Committee considers that in order to remedy the existing situation, it is now vitally important to address the issues that were not considered prior to 1996, and to try to ensure: • that the TEN-T correspond more closely to the purpose assigned them in the Treaty (instruments for both competi- tiveness and cohesion); In the Committee’s view, this will mean establishing a 5. 8. precise definition of what a TEN-T is or what it should be. This definition could be one of the points considered in the wide debate which the European Commission intends to launch when it publishes its white paper. The definition should be precise and detailed enough to: • provide analytical and quantitative instruments for the the revision of multimodal trans-European transport network (MTN-T) the guidelines, so as to ensure that — has sufficient capacity in areas where demand is highly concentrated; — is sufficiently accessible for all areas of the EU; — reduces environmental damage to an acceptable level; — meets the basic principles of a social costs/benefits analysis; discuss objectively the pros and cons of whether a certain item of infrastructure should form part of the MTN-T; organize the hierarchy and functionality of the MTN-T and of all its constituent parts (links, interconnection points and corridors); establish a general reference framework for the typological design of the MTN-T, and for the analysis and evaluation of action priorities. • • • 5. 9. Lastly, the Committee suggests that one way of address- ing the abovementioned shortcomings would be for the immediate planning of ‘horizontal’ R&D measures to include provision for: • • • fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a view to continual assessment of the contribution of the TEN-T to competitiveness and accessibility, given that the latter is a basic plank of economic and social cohesion; fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a view to continual assessment of the common interest of the specific elements of the TEN-T (corridors, projects, etc. ); fleshing out the requisite indicators and technical specifi- cations, so that they measure the intrinsic quality of TEN-T infrastructure and of the services provided by it. C 293/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13. 10. 1999 6. Future action regarding the Community guidelines (specific points) 6. 1. In the absence of any practical or operational plan for the MTN-T, the Committee is at all events obliged to offer some answers to the problems raised by the European Commission in the 1998 report. The paragraphs which follow are designed to provide guidance and fuel the debate which is being launched. They represent the broad guidelines which the Committee feels should underpin the MTN-T. 6. 7. The Committee cannot accept the report’s view that a systematic approach provides an alternative to ‘overlaying’ the existing dense networks to create a set of priority multimodal corridors (the third option mooted by the report). On the contrary, a rigorous, systematic approach is vital for identifying and selecting these corridors. 6. 8. In order to effectively reset the balance of Europe and thus achieve a more harmonious configuration of the Community as a whole, peripheral, island and landlocked regions must be better linked to the rest of the EU. 6. 2. The 1998 report mentions the possibility of stepping up Community activity in the field of traffic management and navigation systems (Intelligent Transport Systems, or ITS). The aim is to make optimum use of existing infrastructure and reduce the emphasis on the building of new infrastructure. This can be done by focusing on their specific characteristics, developing their ports and connecting them to long-distance rail routes. For instance, to strengthen the competitiveness of maritime transport and to enhance the complementarity of peripheral ports, these ports should be linked to the TEN-T by road, rail or other modes, such as inland waterways and ‘feeder’ lines. The Committee feels that this may not be a valid 6. 3. option in all cases, for the reasons set out in points 3,12 to 3,14 above. Hence, a scheme which is extremely relevant for some of the ‘heartland areas’ (using ITS systems to make the most of existing infrastructure) may be premature and discriminatory for some ‘outlying areas’ which still have obvious fundamental gaps in some basic transport infrastruc- ture. 6. 4. The Committee is concerned at the 1998 report’s suggestion that priority projects could continue to be decided on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. The report seems to view this as an alternative to two more systematic procedures. A cursory reading of the report would therefore suggest that the ‘ad hoc’ procedure is a discretional one, or one that is adjusted on a case-by-case basis. If this is so, the Committee is forced to point out that 6. 5. selecting projects on an ‘ad hoc’ (in the sense of discretionary) basis makes it impossible to plan or implement them with any rigour. Priorities must be set according to definite rules that are made public, so that the process is properly transparent, even if these priorities have to revised when there is a change in objective conditions or social considerations. It is mainly over long distances that intermodality provides a possible alternative to exclusively road-based transport. 6. 9. In short, the Committee thinks that the usual rigorous network planning procedures must be used to identify and select these corridors, which should become: • • • • the building blocks for establishing an initial scale of priorities within the very extensive MTN-T; a channel for selecting priority projects, keeping a balance between the contribution to competitiveness and the contribution to accessibility; a powerful instrument for coordinating the development of the MTN-T; the best guarantee of consistency for the MTN-T schemes in subsequent years. 6. 10. The target date for completion of the networks covered by Decision 1692/96/EC is 2010. The 1998 report raises the question of whether this date should be retained in any revision of the guidelines. The Committee feels that this is a matter of form rather than substance. 6. 6. Pursuing this line of thought, the Committee points out that the use of a systematic approach for identifying the trans-European benefits of individual projects and multimodal corridors (the second of the three options mooted in the report) is vital for setting subsequent priorities for the revision of the guidelines. 6. 11. Looking ahead, the Committee finds it inconceivable that in the year 2006 the EU institutions will approve a second revised set of guidelines for a mere four-year period. By its infrastructure planning has to be an ongoing very nature, process that responds to anticipated changes in needs and in a whole host of other relevant factors. 13. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 293/15 6. 12. Whether this continuity in planning is ultimately assured by the use of a rolling plan or a new plan with its own firm deadlines, the EU institutions will still be able to extend their MTN-T planning horizons, using a 10 or 15 year perspective. The Committee considers that this is the approach which should underpin the first and subsequent revisions of the guidelines. 6. 12. 1. A longer-term planning perspective is also consis- tent with the Commission’s proposal to revise the financial regulation so as to allow the establishment of multi-annual indicative programmes, the purpose of which is to provide a medium-term planning framework for project financing. As already suggested in some of the comments made 6. 13. above, the the Committee has serious misgivings about report’s shift of emphasis away from the construction of new infrastructure and towards optimum use of existing infrastructure, which is mooted as a possible common policy. The Committee stresses that the aim must be to: • select the most appropriate course of action for each case, as explained in points 3. 12 to 3. 14; • never forget that infrastructure is built solely in order to be used, and that there is always scope for seeking ways of exploiting it to the best possible effect and seeing that it provides the best possible service. 6. 14. The Committee considers that the integrated and multimodal nature of the TEN-T — in which the various form a coherent modes are not simply juxtaposed, but whole — is crucial for properly addressing the problems of interoperability, basic technical standards, and uniform service quality. Once again, prior planning of the TEN-T along the lines set out in points 5,1 to 5,9 is vital if the guidelines are to be revised in a totally consistent manner. Brussels, 3 June 1999. the MTN-T, importance in the development of Although environmental aspects are undoubtedly of 6. 15. vital the Committee is somewhat perplexed at the link which the report establishes between ‘priorities’ and ‘environment’. From the point of view of interpretation, the problem might lie in Article 5 of Decision 1692/96/EC, which mentions ‘integration of environmental concerns into the design and development is one thing for the environmental of dimension to be a priority for the design of the MTN-T, but quite another for it to determine specific implementing priorities. the network’. It In the Committee’s view, environmental problems 6. 16. will affect the way in which a project is implemented, the measures needed to resolve its external impact, and even perhaps whether it is implemented at all (such extreme cases would have to be evaluated in the light of the strategic environmental assessment required under Article 8 of Deci- sion 1692/96/EC). However, the Committee does not under- stand why environmental aspects should have a direct influ- ence on the setting of priorities. It is quite possible that projects impact may not be the most with a lesser environmental necessary or the most urgent (or vice versa). 6. 17. The 1998 report mentions the need for a procedure to adapt the Community guidelines to policies and priorities that are constantly changing. It is noteworthy that the report refers to the purpose of this procedure as being ‘to withdraw or modify projects that are included in the guidelines’. Such a concern is a welcome contrast to the initial planning of the TEN-T, which (once again, as far as the Committee is aware) very seldom used systematic, standardized procedures for the inclusion of infrastructure (aside from the individual plans of each Member State). The Committee considers that when dealing with 6. 18. procedural issues — and paradoxical though this may seem at first sight — it is only by reference to basic planning and organizational principles and a few clear and practical priority criteria that it will be possible to provide a coherent response to changes in policies and in social priorities. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER