Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Trans-European Networks: 1999 Annual Report pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial assistance in the field of Trans-European Networks"

(2001/C 253/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Trans-European Networks: 1999 Annual Report, pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial assistance in the field of Trans-European Networks (COM(2000) 591 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 September 2000, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the matter;

having regard to the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 13 June 2000 to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-European Networks, Transport and the Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to its opinion of 11 March 1999 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 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 - CdR 398/98 fin)(1);

having regard to its opinion of 3 June 1999 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) (CdR 60/99 fin)(2);

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Title XV on "Trans-European Networks" and Title XVII on Economic and Social Cohesion of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of Trans-European Networks;

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of 19 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of Trans-European Networks;

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 report of the European Parliament on Trans-European transport networks (A5-0076/2000) and its resolution of 4 May 2000(3);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 3 on 7 February 2001 (CdR 408/2000 rev.) (rapporteur: Mr Lebrun, B-PPE);

whereas trans-European network policy has crucial implications for competitiveness, economic and social cohesion and sustainable mobility at both Community and regional level,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 38th plenary session of 4 and 5 April 2001 (meeting of 4 April).

VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. General comments and sector-by-sector analysis

1.1. The Committee is pleased to note that in requesting the present opinion from the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission is keeping abreast of the proposals and interests of regional and local authorities in the sphere of trans-European networks.

1.2. In consequence, the present opinion must be more than a "snap-shot" of the state of trans-European networks in 1999. The Committee of the Regions intends to reaffirm its stance on the subject, more specifically with a view to the forthcoming publication of the Commission's report on the revision of the guidelines for the trans-European transport network.

1.3. The report which is the subject of the present opinion deals primarily with the transport sector and to a lesser extent with the energy and telecommunications networks. This imbalance is probably due to more advanced privatisation in the latter two sectors and the resulting lower public finance requirements.

1.4. The Commission cannot, however, mask the significance of TENs development for these two sectors. In particular, the Community's contribution to funding energy distribution and telecommunications networks in the EU's rural areas should be increased, especially in the remote and outermost regions and, generally, in regions lagging behind in development.

1.5. In the same connection, the Committee would question the effectiveness of the Energy Guidelines Committee which, inexplicably, did not meet in 1999.

2. Progress achieved on specific projects

2.1. Most of the projects of common interest continued to make satisfactory progress, especially the 14 specific trans-European transport network projects identified by the Essen European Council. This appreciation is based on the recorded shift from feasibility studies to direct grants in 1999 Community funding for TEN-transport (more projects having now entered the construction phase).

2.2. It should be noted that the share of feasibility studies stood at 28 % for 1999, meaning that the European Parliament's recommendation of the previous year has been taken on board (the Parliament had called for this share to be brought down progressively to a 30 % ceiling).

2.3. In contrast, in 1999 the Commission continued to concentrate most of its available TEN-transport resources on the 14 specific Essen projects (58 %), although the European Parliament had called for commitment appropriations for these projects not to exceed 50 %.

3. Financing the TENs

3.1. Two very positive factors intervened in 1999 regarding TENs financing:

- the substantial increase in the budget package for the period 2000-2006 (EUR 4.6 billion, double the amount for the 1995-1999 period);

- the revision of Regulation (EC) No 2236/95: the benefits will include the possibility of establishing indicative multiannual programmes and investing in risk-capital funds, changes which will help boost private sector involvement, the development of public-private partnership projects, and long-term financing.

Forthcoming annual reports should assess the effectiveness of these new measures, including for current multiannual programmes, as provided by the amended Article 16 of the new financial regulation.

Multiannual programming should significantly enhance TENs funding. It is also important for the Commission to take account of how local and regional authorities are to be consulted as part of this process.

3.2. It might be worth recalling that EU budget resources are clearly not commensurate with the requirements and challenges involved in creating a TEN-transport (on average, 3 % of the total investment costs).

It is unfortunate, in this regard, that the 1999 report does not indicate the sources of non-Community funding represented by national, regional or local public sector finance, or from the private sector. In order to fill this gap, it would be helpful to publish more detailed finance plans, beginning with the 14 Essen priority projects.

3.3. In revising the TEN financial regulation, improvements have been introduced for satellite navigation systems (the Community support level rising from 10 % to 20 %), and for the Galileo project in particular.

In order to extend the effect of this measure, the Committee of the Regions proposes that TEN projects receive additional resources if they contribute significantly to the initial TEN objectives (growth, competitiveness, employment, cohesion or sustainable mobility). It would therefore seem reasonable to increase the grant level to 20 % of the total investment cost in cases where the Union has particularly important interests at stake (in connection, for example, with "missing" or "overheated links"). One priority should be transport links to the applicant countries.

4. TEN-transport funding allocation by mode: towards a sustainable transport policy

4.1. A sustainable transport policy must be based on the most environment- and quality of life-friendly modes of transport. The bulk of Community expenditure, however, is still directed to rail (64 %) and road (17 %), a preference which is also reflected in Cohesion Fund financing. In contrast, the share of the TEN-transport budget earmarked for water transport remains negligible (4 % for inland waterways and 1 % for sea/ports).

Where it is possible, however, water transport offers definite advantages in both cost and environmental terms.

4.2. The Committee of the Regions therefore calls upon the Member States to devote more sustained attention to this mode of transport, and to facilitate the creation of high-quality projects for water transport, particularly regarding the "missing links" and autonomous ports.

It would also be in the interests of sustainable mobility for the profitability of the different modes to be calculated in a way which reflects environmental costs (internalisation of external costs), thereby making the less polluting transport modes more competitive. From this point of view, the Committee of the Regions calls for the use of revenue from motorway tolls to finance initiatives designed to enhance environmental quality in the transport sector to be allowed (cross-financing).

5. Intermodal transport chains

5.1. The 1999 report provides little detail on issues and initiatives in developing intermodal transport chains. TEN-transport must, however, be rooted in an integrated multimodal approach (and not simply the juxtaposition of single-mode networks).

5.2. This means that the Member States, or where they are not able, the Community, should:

- ensure effective coordination in the development of the various networks, under the umbrella of "integrated intermodal strategies" as defined in the ESDP;

- organise the hierarchy (priority corridors) and functionality of the network and all its constituent parts (links, interconnection points and corridors);

- develop appropriate intermodal connections, in turn requiring availability of transshipment and loading points across the entire EU;

- press ahead with measures for interoperability, a sphere in which the Commission and the Member States have made notable progress.

6. A proper balance between competitiveness and accessibility (as a keystone of economic and social cohesion), and the particular nature of sub-regional problems

6.1. TEN-T ought to correspond more closely to the purpose assigned to it in the Treaty (according to which it should be an instrument for both competitiveness and cohesion). It must therefore firstly guarantee sufficient accessibility for all areas of the EU, including island, landlocked and peripheral regions, and secondly, have sufficient capacity where demand is highly concentrated. This also applies in particular to heavily used transit areas.

6.2. If this objective is to be met, the focus should shift to the specific characteristics of island, landlocked and peripheral regions, developing their ports and connecting them to long-distance rail routes. An "interregional accessibility map" should also be created, which would 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.

6.3. In general, the particular characteristics of the various sub-regions must be taken into account in the recommended balance between competitiveness and accessibility.

6.4. More specifically, according priority to existing infrastructures may be premature and discriminatory for some peripheral regions which have fundamental gaps in some basic infrastructure.

7. Evaluation and planning of TEN actions

7.1. The TEN-T guidelines only make sense insofar as they effectively help to boost competitiveness, cohesion and employment. It is therefore crucial to measure their practical effects. To this end, the Committee of the Regions proposes to flesh out the design and preparation of indicators and evaluation methods by means of horizontal R& D measures.

7.2. In any case, Article 16 of the new financial regulation requires the annual report to contain an evaluation of the results achieved with Community aid in different fields of application, in terms of the original objectives.

7.3. The present report does contain a section on evaluation, but it essentially consists of a list of prior documents with no further details on their contents.

7.4. It is also important to ensure continuity in planning TEN actions (retaining a 10 to 15 year perspective). It is consequently inconceivable that the new guidelines should be adopted only for a four-year period (from 2006 to 2010, the initial cut-off date). This objective is, however, met under the new indicative multiannual programming structure.

7.5. Lastly, the way priorities are determined should be subject to pre-established rules known to all, as part of a rigorous and transparent approach to planning.

8. Enlargement and external relations

8.1. Connections with third countries are vital, both to reduce the structural obstacles to future EU enlargements and to embed the EU networks more firmly within world transport systems.

8.2. This aim should certainly be met with the creation of the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA). ISPA will be responsible for financing major transport infrastructure works in the applicant countries, using its substantial annual budget of EUR 520 million, or more than EUR 3,6 billion for the 2000-2006 period, accounting for some 75 % of the sum earmarked for intra-Community TEN projects (EUR 4,6 billion).

8.3. This amount seems appropriate, in view of the vital importance of developing TENs in the applicant countries. Just how important this is was recently made clear in the Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) final report, published in October 1999 (in which the cost of building the network was estimated at some EUR 92 billion). It should be noted that the report gave priority to the pan-European corridors defined at Helsinki for the construction of the rail and road elements of the network.

8.4. However, it is also vital that Community decisions on financial assistance for current Member States to build the trans-European transport network should take account of particular regional requirements in the light of forthcoming EU enlargement.

9. The Committee of the Regions' conclusions and recommendations

The Committee of the Regions:

9.1. urges the Commission to continue its work on TENs policy in the field of transport, but also in the energy and, most importantly, telecommunications sectors, with special regard to the concerns expressed at the Lisbon summit;

9.2. emphasises the significant increase in Community TENs funding (both within the Union and in the applicant countries), which should enable project completion to be speeded up, and considers it vital that Community decisions on financial assistance for current Member States to build the trans-European transport network should take account of particular regional requirements in the light of forthcoming EU enlargement;

9.3. welcomes the revision of financial regulation (EC) No 2236/95, and calls upon the Commission to remain alert to the forthcoming revision of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, and to its consequences for the current forms of Community TENs support;

9.4. reaffirms its stance with regard to the forthcoming revision of the European Trans-European Transport Network guidelines, its first request being that common policy in this sphere be defined more clearly;

9.5. believes in particular that the TEN-transport should be compatible with the objectives of sustainable mobility: this implies that it should give preference to the most environment-friendly modes of transport, including water transport, and be based on an integrated multimodal approach;

9.6. also believes that TEN-transport must be more closely aligned with Treaty objectives, in the light of the balance between competitiveness and accessibility, and calls upon the Commission to supplement its future annual reports with an evaluation which focuses more specifically on these issues;

9.7. recalls that the components of TEN-transport must be subject to rigorous evaluation and sequenced planning.

Brussels, 4 April 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert

(1) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 9.

(3) OJ C 41, 7.2.2001, p. 27.