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

(2003/C 85/04)

On 2 March 2000 the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) decided, under Rule 23(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an additional opinion on the "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 preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2002. The rapporteurs were Mr von Schwerin, followed by Ms Alleweldt(1).

At its 395th plenary session (meeting of 11 December 2002) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 94 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Purpose of the EESC initiative

1.1. Following the own-initiative opinion(2) on the implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors adopted in March 2000 on the basis of principle 10 of the Helsinki Declaration(3) - and the activities that have sprung from it - EESC decided to continue with its work and set up a permanent study group.

1.2. This decision was taken not only because of the success and impact of cooperation between the EESC and socio-economic representatives from the central and eastern European countries (CEEC), but also because of a particular difficulty that has given repeated cause for concern. Despite the fact that governments and European institutions have committed themselves to consulting socio-economic groups on the development of transport policy, there is a glaring disregard for this principle in practice in most CEEC. Problems of a lack of coordination and transparency at national level are repeated on the international stage and thus prevent socio-economic groups from playing an active role in European integration. The EU institutions and European organisations are doing too little to counter this deplorable state of affairs. The EESC would like to take this opportunity to call for more to be done in this area in future.

1.3. The aim of the permanent study group's work is to ensure that the social partners and environmental and consumer associations are involved in decision-making on future transport policy and infrastructure investment well before the final political decisions are taken. This is the main purpose of the individual activities in the corridors and transport areas.

2. Summary of the EESC's activities and conclusions

2.1. The first meeting with a public debate took place on 26 October 2002 and concluded that there were considerable shortcomings in the implementation of a genuinely integrated transport policy.

It was noted that there was a need for action in the following areas:

- promotion of regional transport network links;

- improvement of environmental audit;

- enhancement of transport safety;

- creation of a fair competitive environment;

- management of structural changes in connection with privatisation;

- provision of better infrastructure-planning instruments;

- search for requisite funding;

- increased transparency with regard to information;

- improvement of consultations and social dialogue;

- better coordination of activities at European level, especially with the Commission.

2.2. The EESC has consistently managed to establish better contacts with the government steering committees in the corridors. It has also become an established consultative partner and is involved in particular in the ongoing work in Corridors IV, X and VII and Corridor IV's railways steering committee.

2.3. Building up these contacts opens up further possibilities for active involvement in the other steering committees. Getting actively involved must however be carefully weighed up against the study group's operational capabilities and possibilities.

2.4. In response to many requests, the Commission has established a new coordination forum, made up of the steering committee chairs and representatives of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). The European Economic and Social Committee will also take part in this forum.

2.5. In the next two to three years, further development of the corridors is to be linked to the revision of the TEN guidelines. Plans are also afoot for a renewed, broad-based consultation of transport ministers on the course to be taken by pan-European transport policy. This would more or less amount to a follow-up to the Helsinki declaration. In this context, the EESC's work plays an important role and should be drawn on as appropriate.

2.6. The EESC's workload has expanded rapidly. The Committee has proved that, in this field, it can do much promote social dialogue with socio-economic partners in central and eastern Europe. It has thereby also established itself as a partner for the EU institutions and individual governments/ministries.

This role can be further extended, by:

- providing a commitment in the medium term, among other things by re-establishing a permanent study group on the promotion of social dialogue in the pan-European corridors;

- further improving its role in providing contacts, information and exchange of experience with players;

- further strengthening the principle of dialogue conferences and on-the-spot activities;

- ensuring committed representation of the EESC, and thus also of the interests of socio-economic groups, in the relevant forums and steering committees.

2.7. The political and economic significance of the rapid revival of Corridor X (former Yugoslavia), and the considerable interest still shown by our socio-economic partners in closer cooperation in Corridor X indicate that the next dialogue conference should be held there.

3. Report on activities since March 2000

3.1. Permanent study group: first meeting and open discussion session, 26 October 2000

3.1.1. At a time when the EESC is expanding its operations and the governments concerned are supporting and coordinating work in individual transport corridors, other players are pulling back or setting different priorities. Under the Helsinki declaration(4), the G-24 transport working group of the Commission and the OECD is supposed to be responsible for monitoring. It did not meet between January 1999 and March 2001, and the March meeting failed to resolve many issues in relation to the group's future. This has created a certain vacuum, less in the sense that operations as a whole are on the wane, but more in terms of the need for a transparent, coordinated and joint approach, as intended by the Helsinki conference and declaration, the last major political event.

3.1.2. At the same time, rather than diminishing, the tasks and specific problems related to the common transport policy and economic and social coherence in Europe are on the increase. Among socio-economic stakeholders in particular, but also among political decision-makers in CEEC governments, parliaments and administrations, the Helsinki process raised expectations of broad support from and enhanced communication with the appropriate players within the EU. Such expectations now risk being dashed. The last political opportunity for consultation was the hearing on the TINA report, staged jointly by the EESC and the Commission in March 1999. Regrettably, the final report makes no mention of this hearing and the joint report on it by the Commission and the TINA secretariat was never completed. This does nothing to encourage input from CEEC socio-economic partners.

3.1.3. For this reason, the study group meeting on 26 October 2000 was combined with an open discussion session. Its purpose was to target and bring together those who have taken on key tasks and responsibilities in the overall process. These include representatives from the Commission, the European Parliament (EP), the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), the steering committees and selected CEEC socio-economic stakeholders with working ties with the EESC(5). The discussion was designed to initiate agreement on individual activities and, as far as possible, to lay down joint priorities for future cooperation in greater detail. The aim was to make clear, tangible and practical provision for the launch of further cooperation projects.

3.2. Corridor IV

3.2.1. Since June 1999, excellent ongoing working relations have been maintained with the steering committee of Corridor IV governments. The European Economic and Social Committee regularly takes part in meetings, for instance on 29 September 2000 in Vienna, on 7 and 8 June 2001 in Bratislava and on 21 and 22 June 2002 in Sofia (see footnote 2, p. 17).

3.2.2. The joint declaration signed at the February 2000 conference in Vidin, Bulgaria and Calafat, Romania, was forwarded to the office of the special coordinator of the stability pact for south-eastern Europe, Bodo Hombach, where it was received with interest. The policy decisions regarding the construction of the bridge across the Danube have now been taken and the infrastructure planning is well under way. Further talks were held in conjunction with the Corridor IV steering committee meeting on 22 May 2002. The European Economic and Social Committee reiterated its willingness to provide political, economic and social decision-makers with on-the-spot support so that the momentum generated by the development of the corridor could be of optimum benefit to the region. This issue was also addressed in talks between the rapporteur and Commissioner Verheugen, who supports the Committee's commitment.

3.2.3. Corridor IV's railways steering committee invited the EESC to attend its meeting on 10 and 11 May 2000 in Athens. Its purpose was to spell out future cooperation and draw up proposals for projects. The EESC rapporteur presented a blueprint setting out specific proposals, which met with broad approval (see footnote 2, p. 17). This blueprint was also discussed with trade union representatives at the railway section meeting of the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) on 20 September 2000 in Brussels. A working group of rail unions from the Corridor IVcountries was set up in July 2001, and the rapporteur attended its fourth meeting in Prague in February 2002. Consultations with the rail unions are now to be held on two issues, namely the improvement of border crossings and of general information exchange. The EESC's mediating role is expressly welcomed, as was made clear in a letter to the rapporteur.

3.2.4. The EESC's most recent work in Corridor IV mainly involved co-hosting - together with the European Intermodal Association (EIA) - a round-table discussion on the promotion of intermodal links in the corridors. This event, held in conjunction with the Danube summit in Constanza on 26 and 27 June 2002, also provided an opportunity for an initial exchange of views between representatives of Corridor IV's railways steering committee and the trade union working party. The aim is to launch a meaningful discussion leading to additional practical projects that can also be applied to other corridors. Further findings and conclusions for the future are to be found in a separate report (see footnote 2, p. 17).

3.3. Corridor III

3.3.1. In early September 2000, a seminar was held in Poland - at the instigation of Euronatur and with Mr Lutz Ribbe in the chair - on issues concerning the liberalisation of local public transport. The rapporteur Alexander Graf von Schwerin also attended, and made a contribution. This seminar provided the impetus for a conference at the intersection of Corridors III and VI in Katowice, Poland.

3.3.2. The Katowice conference on 19 and 20 March 2001 focused on regional integration around corridors, with reference to planning and financial problems. Some sixty representatives of economic and social interest groups took part. It became clear that regional ties and links to regional transport networks also had to be included in the work on the building of corridors. This could further environmental protection, safety, efficient financial planning and the smooth running of local public transport(6).

3.4. Corridor X

3.4.1. Initial contacts with the - at the time still "unofficial" - Corridor X steering committee were established in June 2000 via cooperation within the Corridor IV steering committee. Official status came only with the signing of the memorandum of understanding in spring 2001. The European Economic and Social Committee took part in a steering committee meeting for the first time in Grevena, Greece, on 26 and 27 April 2002 (see footnote 5). The steering committee is backed by a technical secretariat attached to Aristotle University, Thessaloniki (AUTh), which produces extensive studies and maintains the steering committee's dedicated website.

3.4.2. This year, the steering committee will focus on the issue of border crossings and has set up a working group for this purpose, which cooperates with DG TREN and DG Taxation and with the UN-ECE. The European Economic and Social Committee has been asked to take part in the work.

3.4.3. The political and economic significance of the rapid revival of Corridor X, and the considerable interest still shown by our socio-economic partners in closer cooperation in Corridor X indicate that the next dialogue conference should be held there.

3.5. Corridor V

3.5.1. In Corridor V, cooperation with the Slovenian rail company and rail union and the Slovenian transport ministry started well. A working meeting was held in Ljubljana in June 2001 which drew up very specific plans for a dialogue conference in October of the same year. In the event, this came to nothing because of changes in the political priorities in Slovenia and EESC budget difficulties.

4. Future topics for work

4.1. The permanent study group on the promotion of social dialogue in the pan-European corridors will continue working on the following issues:

- The dialogue conferences have been very successful. In which corridors should further conferences be proposed and what should the issues and targets be?

- The Committee is making of a name for itself in this field. What further improvements can be made to its PR work and public impact?

- Contacts with the CEEC socio-economic partners are in need of improvement. Trade unions are now starting to engage in wide-ranging cooperation. The other interest groups in society lack appropriate initiatives. How can the Committee improve its role as mouthpiece, forum and mediator?

- The permanent study group's work covers more than mere transport policy and is complemented by other Committee initiatives. What can be done to improve internal EESC coordination and refine interplay?

- Involvement in the steering committees only makes sense if there is scope for practical activities. In future, it is unlikely that the rapporteur and section secretariat will continue to be able to plan and arrange such activities on their own. What procedures could be developed for this work?

Brussels, 11 December 2002.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch

(1) Four-yearly Committee renewal.

(2) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 12.

(3) In 1997, representatives of the governments and parliaments of the European countries and of the institutions of the European Union agreed in Helsinki on a joint declaration on the development of pan-European transport policy. One of the agreed principles is consultation of socio-economic groups in transport policy development (principle 10).

(4) Extract from the Helsinki declaration: "We invite the participants to... consider the need firstly to monitor implementation of the 'means' set out in Section IV of this declaration, and secondly to evaluate periodically the degree of achievement of the 'objectives' described in Section II, and in this connection request the European Union, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and partners in multilateral and regional initiatives to cooperate in the aggregation of relevant data, to review progress towards regional and sectoral goals, and to make proposals for more effective implementation on the basis of experience".

(5) The list of participants at the meeting on 26 October 2000 is to be found in report DI 262/2002 (available in the TEN secretariat).

(6) See detailed report DI 262/2002 of 11 June 2001 (available in the TEN secretariat).