Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors"

(2000/C 117/03)

On 28 January 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the following subject on "Implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors".

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for drawing up the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 February 2000. The rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 370th plenary session on 1 and 2 March 2000 (meeting of 1 March), the Committee adopted the following opinion by 113 votes in favour, with four abstentions.

1. Purpose of the opinion

1.1. Since the first pan-European transport conference (1991) in Prague, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) has committed itself to involving socio-economic groups - particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe - in political cooperation. This preoccupation has been expressed in a series of opinions(1) and is widely supported both by the organisations concerned and by political institutions. An important consequence of the ESC initiative was the inclusion of Principle 10 in the Helsinki Declaration (1997). It describes the consultation of socio-economic groups in the development of transport policy as an integral part of the common policy, with a view to achieving the objectives set out in the Declaration.

Despite the expressed commitment of the governments concerned, in practice most Central and Eastern European countries flagrantly disregard this principle. The problem of insufficient coordination and transparency at national level is mirrored at international level and prevents the socio-economic groups from playing an active role in European integration. The politicians do little to counter this deplorable state of affairs. Apart from the activities of the ESC, hardly anything has been done to implement the consultation principle since the Helsinki Conference. The ESC will therefore have to renew its efforts in this area.

1.2. The comments in this opinion are intended in particular to put into practice the conclusions of the most recent ESC opinion, entitled "The implementation of the Helsinki declaration - establishing concrete machinery for consulting the economic and social interest groups on the definition of a pan-European transport policy"(2). The ESC has repeatedly stated that the consultation principle in the context of pan-European transport policy has received virtually no attention, despite the fact that such a mechanism offers an outstanding opportunity in the European integration process to promote stable democratic development with the support of citizens and their socio-economic organisations. The ESC has made it its task to give substance to Principle 10 of the Helsinki Declaration and show what opportunities are contained in it. This includes calling for the support of all those who, by endorsing the Helsinki Declaration, have made a commitment to help implement it.

1.3. In a changing institutional structure after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam and under the altered conditions of the Economic and Monetary Union and of the next stage in the enlargement process, the ESC is strengthening its institutional role as a forum and bridge for European socio-economic interest groups and in terms of its newly gained advisory role vis-à-vis the European Parliament. This is particularly important in relation to certain countries outside the Community, such as the central and eastern European countries. For the Committee it is a matter of giving its work a greater representativeness and impact and of playing an active role in the process of enlarging and democratising the EU.

2. Essence of the plan for consultations

2.1. The ESC has agreed to promote consultations with the socio-economic groups in connection with transport policy cooperation in the ten priority corridors and the four transport areas (PETrAS) agreed upon at Helsinki in 1997. To this end a plan for a structured social dialogue was outlined. The important points of this approach need to be covered once again here. To avoid ambiguities, "structured dialogue" will be the term used throughout this opinion. The social dialogue is strictly speaking a matter for the social partners and not the subject of the consultations covered by this opinion.

2.2. Along these corridors and in these transport areas, representatives of employers' associations, trade unions, and other interest groups are to meet to discuss problems, possible solutions and demands to be presented to political authorities, but also to build a forum in which policy expectations can themselves be discussed. Such meetings should be closely linked with the work of the steering committees set up by the governments involved. They can also base their approach on that of the existing committees for cooperation between the railway undertakings involved. A dialogue of this kind has the objective of linking extension of infrastructure with the development of efficient transport services. Only in this way can the most benefit be gained from the scarce funds available for infrastructure investment. At the same time, joint projects will have more chance of being completed successfully if economic, social and environmental goals can be linked at an early stage, so that social acceptability is furthered. Moreover, a structured dialogue should strengthen the important social function of employers' associations, trade unions and other interest groups in the central and eastern European countries (CEEC).

2.3. Cooperation in the corridors and transport areas should be characterised by continuity and commitment without imposing rigid structures from outside. The 1998 ESC questionnaire filled in by potential participants from central and eastern Europe showed that it seems sensible to use co-ordinators from those countries. This cooperation would not compete with cooperation in the relevant international organisations of the associations or at political level. The aim is rather to establish a balanced, constructive and practical form of communication between the various interest groups in the countries concerned and the transport operators.

2.4. The subject matter of cooperation would be all the questions which need to be resolved in the context of a properly operating transport system. Account must be taken of current requirements in the context of a common European transport policy, and specifically requirements for action in individual corridors and transport areas. The basis is the transport policy aims and measures agreed upon in the Helsinki Declaration.

2.5. The fundamental aim is to promote the development of a social market economy and social cohesion in a wider Union, where social forces which support market-orientated and environmentally and socially responsible economic development will be backed up. This can be summed up as a need to strengthen the links between the countries of the Union, the candidate countries and the remaining European states.

2.6. The ESC attaches special importance to the transport corridors as a connecting link and a basis for cross-frontier cooperation: they are the link between the countries of Europe even beyond the projected EU enlargement. In this respect the extension of the corridor concept to central and eastern Europe is essential and the activities should not be confined to the applicant countries. The pan-European perspective must be retained. This corresponds to the spirit and the letter of the Helsinki Declaration, which refers to cross-frontier corridors extending to the Far East and Middle East and transport areas extending far beyond the borders of an enlarged EU.

2.7. The ESC sees its task as being to act as initiator, discussion partner and if necessary coordination point for activities on the spot. The ESC also feels it has a responsibility to represent the interests of socio-economic groups in the process of monitoring the implementation of the Helsinki Declaration vis-à-vis the other EU institutions and European organisations concerned. These activities must always be tailored to the perceived need and must be regularly reviewed in the light of political developments.

3. Survey of current work

3.1. On 20-21 January 1999 the G-24 transport working group met in Brussels. This goes back to a joint initiative of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the EU Commission on cooperation in the field of transport policy in central and eastern Europe.

3.1.1. At the invitation of the Commission, about 100 representatives of governments, administrations, financial institutes and the private sector discussed progress in building a pan-European transport network. The ESC was also represented. The main focus was on work in the Helsinki corridors and areas.

3.1.2. Among other things, it was agreed that, in addition to the necessary infrastructure development, logistic and operational conditions should in future be further improved to make cross-frontier and intermodal services more efficient. There was also a need for action on the recording of transport data and the strengthening of environmental protection. As a further development of infrastructure network planning in relation to Asia, the TRACECA project was presented; this results from a Commission initiative of 1993, and sketches out the connection between the pan-European transport network and Central Asia via the Black Sea.

3.1.3. The G-24 transport working group is to go on meeting annually. At this point it should be mentioned that, according to the Commission, this working group is to coordinate activities in implementation of the Helsinki Declaration and to establish the necessary transparency between the institutions and organisations involved. At the next meeting, planned for early 2000, the ESC should report on its own activities in this field. At the same time, the ESC perceives a need for clarification as to the role of the G-24 transport working group: its working methods, the way the participants view their policies and communications between those involved. The ESC will endeavour to have these questions discussed at the next meeting of the G-24 transport working group.

3.2. A Conference was held on 10 December 1998 at the invitation of the European Parliament (EP), on "Pan-European transport policy: prospects and priorities for east-west cooperation". Intended as a follow-up to the Helsinki conference, it provided a forum for an exchange of views focusing on the aims and means of east-west cooperation, the development of integrated transport systems and the possibilities for funding the trans-European networks. The ESC was invited to report on its work in this field.

3.2.1. Since then the transport committee of the EP has produced a report on the follow-up to the Helsinki conference on a pan-European transport policy. The rapporteur was Günter Lüttge. The report concentrates on the implementation of the transport policy measures set out in the Helsinki Declaration, and calls inter alia for a more coordinated approach. It confirms the approach of holding a broad social dialogue, which was also characteristic of the three pan-European transport conferences, and in particular the involvement of the social partners and non-governmental organisations. The ESC's proposals for participation by, and a structured dialogue between, the socio-economic groups in the context of pan-European transport policy are expressly endorsed.

3.3. On 18 and 19 March 1999 there was a hearing on the TINA report (Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment), which was commissioned by the European Commission to indicate the priority infrastructure needs of the applicant countries.

3.3.1. The hearing was jointly organised by the ESC and the Commission's DG VII, supported by the latter's TINA secretariat set up for the purpose in Vienna. The objective was to ascertain the views and experience of the socio-economic groups from the countries concerned and to make it possible for them to discuss the proposals and conclusions in the report before it is finally adopted. About 40 people took part in the hearing.

3.3.2. Apart from the more comprehensive conclusions to be drawn from speeches and debates, which are covered by a separate report, the importance of the hearing itself is that it was a first practical step to implement the Helsinki Declaration, through which the Committee's involvement and the Commission's work could rationally complement each other. The hearing brought out two aspects: firstly, the need for information and exchange of views - both among the associations themselves and with the European Union's policy-makers - remains enormous; secondly, the expertise and practical experience of the associations on the spot are a more important and more necessary component in building a common pan-European transport policy, for which there has been too little scope so far.

This dialogue is particularly important since the infrastructure requirements listed in the TINA report were interpreted by many participants in the hearing as more of a wish list than a realistic basis for planning. Considerable doubts were also expressed on the funding arrangements.

3.3.3. Another hearing is planned, to take place once the work on the TINA report has been completed. The final report has been available since autumn 1999. The work of the TINA secretariat should also be pursued in future, to support the implementation of infrastructure planning in the applicant countries and contribute to work on the corridors.

4. Corridor IV pilot project

4.1. Corridor IV is a multimodal transport axis linking north-west Europe with south-east Europe. It runs from Dresden and Nuremberg through Prague, Vienna/Bratislava and Budapest to Romania. There it divides into a northern branch leading to Constanza and a southern branch from Arad to Sofia, then splits again into links with Thessaloniki and Istanbul respectively (full data on the Corridor can be found in the G-24 progress report)(3).

4.1.1. Corridor IV includes 4440 km of railway, 3740 km of roads, 14 airports and 10 seaports or inland waterway ports. In the applicant countries alone, it is planned to invest ECU 16620 million between now and 2015; this does not include the investments in Germany, Austria, Greece and Turkey.

4.1.2. The steering committee was set up early in 1998. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has since been signed. The railway undertakings involved have continuously broadened their cooperation, and in conjunction with the agreement on a MoU decided on a common work programme at the start of 1997.

4.2. The third meeting of the Corridor IV steering committee was held in Prague from 30 June to 1 July 1999. The rapporteur took part in that meeting and was able to express the ESC's concerns.

4.2.1. It became clear that a structured dialogue with the appropriate representatives of enterprises, trade unions and other interest groups can provide useful support for the work of the steering committee. Of prime importance are the development of high quality transport services and the creation of a favourable climate for investment and jobs. Another important function of the structured dialogue, however, is the establishment of transparency and the exchange of practical experience on as broad a base as possible, to remove barriers to smooth operation in a way which satisfies all parties. The ESC's statements on the matter are included in the minutes of the meeting (see Appendix I).

4.2.2. In addition to the most varied questions which arise in relation to such a link, there are special problems at present. Two major projects dominate the debate: the planned Bosphorus tunnel to provide a road and rail link with Asia; and a second bridge over the Danube between Vidin (Bulgaria) and Calafat (Romania). A lengthy, heated debate continues on the latter. A decisive factor for Corridor IV is that it has to cope with new traffic flows since the war in the Balkans. How to do this in future is primarily a question for the railways. The severely limited navigability of the Danube, which can hardly be improved in the short term because of the political situation, calls for favourable alternative mass transport possibilities. Finally, frontier crossing delays are a problem in this Corridor also.

4.2.3. The members of the steering committee willingly accepted the ESC's cooperation offer. It was agreed to support the ESC's activities in the Corridor and to report on the results at the latest at the next steering committee meeting in the annual cycle. Close cooperation with the newly set up Corridor IV secretariat in Dresden would have to be ensured.

4.3. On the ESC's initiative, a first meeting of the structured dialogue in Corridor IV took place in Budapest on 26/27 October 1999. The Hungarian transport ministry and Hungarian railway organisation (MAV) also played a leading role in its organisation.

4.3.1. The ESC's invitation was accepted by about 40 representatives of socio-economic interest groups from the countries traversed by Corridor IV, as well as representatives of the Corridor IV Steering Committee and the TINA secretariat, and interested observers from individual EU Member States. The discussion covered many themes, starting with basic information on the Corridor, then focusing on:

- the link between infrastructure development and private funding in the light of economic development and public service interests;

- technical and organisational aspects of the optimal provision of services in the Corridor, linked with discussion of social aspects and the prospects for cooperation;

- implications of the Corridor for regional development and environment policy.

4.3.2. The meeting brought to light a wide range of views, providing many constructive links in support of cooperation in the Corridor. It gave rise to a joint resolution underlining the interest in a structured dialogue and emphasising practical steps for its implementation and a number of concrete topics for the dialogue. The precise wording of the resolution can be found in Appendix II of this opinion.

4.3.3. Finally, the discussions in Budapest led to an initiative for a bilateral meeting of Bulgarian and Romanian business and trade union representatives, concentrating on the controversy over the question of an additional Danube crossing between the two countries. The ESC is invited to this meeting at the express wish of the participants; it will be held in February 2000 in Vidin (Bulgaria) and Calafat (Romania).

5. Practical consequences for future work

5.1. The first Corridor meeting as part of a structured social dialogue was a success and confirmed the ESC's basic approach. Now the decisive question is how the organisation, monitoring and coordination of the structured dialogue in transport corridors and transport areas can be guaranteed in practice, at least for the foreseeable future. For this, action is needed on three fronts:

a) securing the ESC's role as coordinator (N.B. also the joint consultative committees);

b) practical organisation of and financial provision for the Corridor meetings;

c) building up contacts and team structures on the spot in the countries concerned.

5.2. The first step in consolidating the ESC's role is to set up a permanent study group. A decision on this will be sought after the close of the study group's work . Practical considerations, on which the work of the permanent study groups over the next year should be based, are set out in section 6 below.

5.3. The practical arrangements and financial provision for the Corridor meetings require professional organisation. Travel allowances should be available when needed to ensure balanced participation. The content of the meetings must be prepared and their results documented. Communication between participants must also be ensured between meetings, through a central contact point. The ESC cannot guarantee to carry out this practical work in the long term on the basis of its current resources.

However, in order to create the necessary practical support, it would make sense to draw up an independent project on the basis of the existing possibilities of assistance through EU programmes. This is of course made more difficult by the existing allocation among countries of the Phare and Tacis programmes, which are not multilateral.

An important boost to such an initiative not only in financial terms but also in terms of political weight would in this case be the setting-up of a "supporters' circle". Preliminary discussions with individuals have made clear their support for this idea.

5.4. Building up cooperation structures for socio-economic interest groups in the corridors and transport areas depends mainly on the interests of the participants. At the same time, they are a precondition for a rational organisation of work, and expressly called for by many individuals. It should be borne in mind that the ESC questionnaire of 1998 produced a clear vote in favour of appointing coordinators from their own ranks. Transport trade unions have in some cases started to form corridor-related teams. Practical approaches and ideas should be passed on.

6. Prospects

6.1. The consultations in the pan-European transport corridors and areas should promote economic and social development and strengthen cohesion in Europe. Experience to date has shown that the ESC initiative fills an important gap and can contribute decisively to the involvement of the socio-economic groups. Accordingly, the experiences of Budapest and of Corridor IV should be further developed. The ESC should have the possibility of organising further Corridor meetings next year and further building up the network of socio-economic players. There is still the possibility of cooperating with the Commission to hold a joint hearing on the final TINA report. The further points below should be taken into account in this work.

6.2. The problems of development beyond the borders of an enlarged EU have been mentioned repeatedly. In parallel with the tasks of the TINA secretariat, the ESC also sees a need to negotiate technical and political support for corridor planning particularly on the territories of the CIS (Community of Independent States). As far as the next steps in consultations with the socio-economic interest groups in another corridor or transport area are concerned , the involvement of the CIS should be ensured.

6.3. To support cooperation in the transport corridors it makes sense to set up secretariats, as has been done on personal initiative in the case of Corridor IV. The ESC suggests that general rules be laid down for this purpose.

6.4. The concept of transport corridors and areas is essentially multimodal. In practice, however, some gaps in the system are discernible. In future, more account should be taken of airports, inland waterways and ports, and public passenger transport in the conurbations concerned.

6.5. The principle of transport and regional policy cooperation on one corridor also arouses the interest of socio-economic groups within the EU. For example, such an initiative exists in Corridor V and its TEN extension to Spain. Where appropriate, activities of this kind should be considered.

6.6. In an earlier opinion (see footnote 2, p. 12) the ESC set great store by support for cooperation in two corridors: Corridor VII (Danube) and Corridor X (on the territory of the former Yugoslavia). Interest in this has been clearly expressed by the socio-economic groups concerned. It should be stressed once again that, once the political situation allows, this interest in cooperation should be put into practice.

6.7. Finally, it should be pointed out that very little is known about work in the transport areas. In comparison with developments in the corridors, it seems there is some catching up to do here.

6.8. The Commission and the European Parliament should be kept continuously informed of the ESC's standpoint and activities, especially using the EP's political contacts with the parliaments of the countries and regions concerned, so that the ESC can play its part, as a forum for European socio-economic interest groups, in the context of the "monitoring process" to implement the Helsinki Declaration, in the establishment of a pan-European transport system.

Brussels, 1 March 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice Rangoni Machiavelli

(1) "Pan-European transport conference and social dialogue - from Crete to Helsinki", OJ C 204, 15.7.1996, p. 96.

"Connecting the Union's transport infrastructure network to its neighbours - towards a cooperative pan-European transport network policy", OJ C 129, 27.4.1998.

(2) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 100.

(3) Status of the Pan-European Transport Corridors and Transport Areas, TINA office, Vienna, December 1998.

APPENDIX I

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Appendix to the Minutes of the meeting of the Corridor IV Steering Committee

The European Economic and Social Committee (ESC) is a consultative institution which represents employers' organisations, trade unions and special interest groups at EU level. The ESC has argued strongly for the integration of the socio-economic interest groups of the countries concerned in the enlargement process. The aim is to encourage rapid and stable development in order to boost economic and social progress. In the framework of the existing European agreements, joint consultative committees were established, for example with Bulgaria and Turkey.

The ESC has been actively involved in pan-European transport policy since the first conference in Prague (1991); its main aim has been to put into practice the consultation of economic and social interest groups, one of the ten basic principles on the future shape of the pan-European transport system finally enshrined in the Helsinki Declaration.

In this context the work in the corridors is of vital importance because it helps to build an efficient transport infrastructure, the backbone of economic growth and social development. We offer our support to the Corridor IV steering committee in bringing in our experience and contacts to enable the members to consult with representatives of industry and socio-economic groups from the transport sector to solve operational problems and to discuss topics on the agenda where appropriate. We are certain that the huge amount of investment in the transport infrastructure has to be combined with efforts to develop the quality of transport services. This can only have a good chance of success if the players concerned collaborate at an early stage.

We would like to support, in close contact with the secretariat now being established in Dresden, the work of the Corridor IV steering committee on the main future topics on the agenda of the working programme, e.g. border crossings, bridge/dam over the Danube. We also propose to exchange information and experience that the study group of the ESC is gathering while cooperating with the socio-economic groups in the corridor.

We propose to start these activities in the coming months and to report the results at the next steering committee meeting. It might be a good idea, depending on the agenda, to invite certain experts who have in the meantime become involved in the work to debate with the steering committee members.

APPENDIX II

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Resolution

Representatives of socio-economic groups from the countries involved in Corridor IV, meeting in Budapest on 26-27 October 1999, invited by the European Economic and Social Committee with the support of the Hungarian Ministry of Transport and the Hungarian Railways (MÁV),

A. following the principles and means of the Helsinki declaration, which aims at ensuring the sustainable mobility of persons and goods under the best possible social and safety conditions, fair competition and environmental protection;

B. stressing in particular principle 10 of the Helsinki declaration, which asks for consultation of socio-economic groups in the framework of a pan-European transport policy;

C. in respect of the work that has been done by the parties involved, namely the European Commission, the Ministers of Transport, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN-ECE) and the railway corridor steering committees;

1. express their wish for closer cooperation in Corridor IV to make the pan-European corridors a means for economic and social cohesion in the whole of Europe;

2. demand that consultation with socio-economic groups form an integral part of corridor cooperation and that financial means be found to realise this objective;

3. stress the need for more transparency and information, also with respect to institutional structures;

4. suggest regular meetings in close cooperation with the corridors steering committees focusing on main issues where practical solutions will have to be found;

5. ask for the assistance of the other parties involved in the corridors and call for help in financing these activities; a coordinating role for the Economic and Social Committee would be appreciated;

6. highlight the following subjects for Corridor IV in particular:

- hearing concerning the final Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) Report,

- solution to the question of the new bridge over the Danube, using the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA) to evaluate socio-economic consequences of this project, taking account of the interests of Romania in the northern link of Corridor IV, with the possibility of involving all interested parties; the Economic and Social Committee offers to moderate the discussion if requested;

- corridor report on environment and transport including aspects relating to social costs and efficiency;

- common efforts to improve interoperability and border crossings.

Budapest, October 1999.