19. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/3 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote: 
The Committee approves the Commission's pro­
posal subject to the following comments: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee is pleased to note that in the 
third recital the Commission stresses the need to 
apply the principles of accident prevention in the 
design and construction of agricultural plant and 
machinery too. This meets the wish expressed by the 
Committee in its opinion of 6 July 1983 on another 
draft Directive on the roll-over protection structures 
of'vineyard'tractors (')• 
2. Specific comments 
Article 1.2 
2.1. The Committee draws the Commission's 
attention to the need to lay down ad hoc rules for 
(') OJ No C 286, 26. 10. 1983, p. 2. the power take-offs and their protective guards on 
certain types of tractor (e.g. vineyard, stilt, etc.) on 
account of the particular characteristics of these 
tractors. 
2.2. Consequently the Committee calls on the 
Commission to redraft Article 1.2 to take into 
account this need, either by excluding these tractors 
from the scope of the Directive, or by amending 
Tables 5 and 6 in Annex I, or by limiting its applica­
tion to the 'standard' tractors defined in Directives 
77/536/EEC and 79/622/EEC. 
Article 4.1 
The Committee calls for the removal of the deadline 
of 1 October 1984. Instead it would like to see the 
Member States given 18 months in which to comply 
with the Directive starting from the time the Direc­
tive is adopted by the Council. 
Annexes 
The Committee has also made several technical 
comments which are contained in the section's 
report (CES 649/83). 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council on a transport 
infrastructure experimental programme 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 December 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198, first paragraph, 
second sentence of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
No C 341/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 19.12.83 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the second sentence of the first 
paragraph of Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Council 
on 23 December 1982, requesting it for an opinion 
on the communication from the Commission to the 
Council on a transport infrastructure experimental 
programme, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
28 January 1983, instructing the Section for Trans­
port and Communications to draw up an opinion 
on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above 
Section at its 151st meeting held on 14 September 
1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Plank, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 210th plenary 
session held on 28 and 29 September 1983 (meeting 
of 28 September), 
Having regard to its previous opinions on transport 
infrastructure and in particular the opinion on the 
proposal for a Council Regulation concerning 
financial support for transport infrastructure pro­
jects of Community interest ('), the memorandum 
on the role of the Community in the development of 
transport infrastructure (2), the report on bottlenecks 
and the proposal for a Council Regulation on the 
granting of limited financial support in the field of 
transport infrastructure (3), 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3600/82 of 30 December 1982 on the granting of 
limited support in the field of transport infrastruc­
ture (4), 
Wheras: 
1. For years all the Community institutions, espe­
cially the Council, have repeatedly and force­
fully stressed the importance of a Community 
infrastructure policy. 
2. No Council meeting of Community transport 
ministers passes without this question appearing 
(') OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1977, p. 83 and OJ No C 300, 18. 11. 
1980, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No C 138,9.6. 1981, p. 61. 
(3) OJ No C 296, 12. 11. 1982, p. 5. 
(4) OJNoL376, 31. 12. 1982, p. 10. on the agenda. However, the matter is always 
put to one side again and the repeated commis­
sioning of Commission studies and reports 
means that a lot of time is taken up which could 
have been spent more usefully. 
3. In all the Member States on chronic shortage of 
finance has put a brake on construction work 
and further complicated relations between the 
various managing and financing bodies (State, 
regions, local authorities, specialized agencies, 
State enterprises, etc). Up to now this shortage 
of funds has simply grown worse, especially as a 
result of a certain tendency on the part of the 
State to disengage itself from this area. 
4. Thus the expansion and modernization of trans­
port infrastructures will in future be closely 
dependent on the political will of the Member 
States and the Council to give priority to the 
provision of funds for investment; such a 
development would be effectively reinforced by 
the introduction of new financing structures and 
in particular the creation of an appropriate 
Community financial instrument (Intrafonds). 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. A proposal for a Council Regulation concern­
ing financial support for transport infrastructure 
projects of Community interest (5) has been pending 
at the Council since 5 July 1976. 
On 4 March 1980 the Commission submitted an 
amendment to that proposal (6) under which infra­
structure projects of Community interest on the ter­
ritory of non-member countries would also qualify 
for Community support. 
The ESC endorsed both drafts 
1.2. However, since the presentation of these pro­
posals, the Council has taken only one concrete 
decision in this field. This was on 30 December 
1982, when it adopted Regulation (EEC) 
(5) OJ No C 207, 2. 9. 1976, p. 9. 
(6) OJ No C 89, 10. 4. 1980, p. 4. 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/5 
No 3600/82 on the granting of limited support in 
the field of transport infrastructure and allocated 
10 000 000 ECU for this purpose. 
A further 15 million ECU have been earmarked so 
far for limited support in 1983, but the requisite 
legal instrument has still not been adopted. At its 
7 June 1983 meeting the Council merely discussed 
the 1976 Commission proposal once more and 
'turned to the possible choice of projects to be 
financed under the 1983 budget'. It did, however, 
urge the Commission to submit as soon as possible 
a proposal for a Regulation for a limited measure in 
the transport infrastructure sector under the 1983 
budget. 
1.3. The Commission has meanwhile submitted 
this proposal, though it disagrees with the Council 
on the Regulation's period of validity; the Commis­
sion thinks that infrastructure measures extend over 
a period of several years, but the Council is appar­
ently only envisaging a one-year programme at the 
moment. The Committee has been consulted separ­
ately on this issue and will comment on it in another 
opinion. 
The Committee is fundamentally in favour of an 
experimental programme for assessing the potential 
benefits of a Community fund for expanding the 
Community's transport infrastrucure. This accords 
with its past opinions on this matter. For example, 
in its abovementioned opinion on the 1979 memo­
randum the Committee stresses 'the advantage of 
examining projects put forward by Member States 
in order to test and evaluate projects'. The Com­
mittee also devoted considerable attention to infra­
structure problems and investments in its opinion of 
28 October 1982 on transport policy in the 1980s (»)• 
1.4. The Committee considers that the launching 
of a common transport infrastructure policy in the 
Community is overdue, for transport networks must 
be coordinated if the Community is to operate as 
one single market and a common transport market 
is to exist, too. The design of the networks from the 
technical and economic angles, the transhipment 
capacity, the interchanges (port/rail and port/road 
transhipment) and the border crossing points must 
(•) OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982, p. 9. be such as to ensure the smooth flow of local and 
long-distance traffic. The Committee therefore 
regrets that a coherent infrastructure policy, in line 
with the general Committee position on this subject, 
as expressed in its opinion of 28 October 1982, was 
not introduced sooner. 
1.5. The Commission's efforts and moves in this 
direction are therefore emphatically welcomed and 
supported by the Committee. 
It is wholly of the view that the Community interest 
in the creation of a European transport infrastruc­
ture must be reflected in a regular financial contri­
bution by the Community. Transit routes through 
non-Community countries which link up major con­
urbations or development areas in the Community 
should also qualify for Community support. 
1.6. Accordingly, the Committee notes that: 
— the drawing-up of an experimental programme 
in the field of transport infrastructure is an 
important step in the right direction, and 
— the 15 000 000 ECU allocation in the 1983 
budget (Article 781) may be extremely modest 
but its significance as a pointer should not be 
underestimated. 
1.7. The Committee would urgently call upon the 
Council to: 
— make available in 1983 at least the 15 000 000 
ECU earmarked, and 
— give its approval to a muntiannual financial 
instrument and to an experimental programme. 
so that, at long last, it moves one step closer to ful­
filling its commitment to establish a common trans­
port infrastructure in the Community. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Guidelines for the evaluation of the Community 
interest of infrastructure projects 
2.1.1. Community interest criteria 
The Committee agrees with the Commission that the 
projects submitted by the Member States for the 
experimental programme cannot be included more 
or less automatically in this programme, but should 
No C 341/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 19.12.83 
have 'a strong socio-economic justification at the 
national level' and also a potential Community 
interest. This is necessary if only because of the fact 
that the funds are limited. 
2.1.2. The Commission report of 16 September 
1981 entitled 'Community assistance for transport 
infrastructure; the evaluation of "Community 
interest" for decision making' sets out alternative 
bottleneck criteria and criteria for profitability to the 
Community as a whole which a project must meet if 
it is to qualify for co-financing. These criteria are 
derived from Article 1 of the 1976 Commission pro­
posal referred to in 1.1. However, these criteria are 
not sufficient in themselves. 
2.1.3. In order to be able to determine 
— whether the advantages of carrying out a project 
outweigh the disadvantages (in particular, the 
expenditure involved), and 
— what degree of priority should be given to each 
project that meets the above criteria, 
other important factors must be taken into account. 
The Commission has commented on this in its 
documents 'Community assistance for transport 
infrastructure; the evaluation of "Community 
interest" for decision making' (Doc. of 16 Septem­
ber 1981), in particular page 13 thereof, and 'Report 
from the Commission to the Council — The Com­
munity interest of transport infrastructure invest­
ments: practical experience with the evaluation 
methodology' (document of 7 December 1982), in 
particular Annex 2, pp. 36 et seq. 
These comments were taken into account by the 
Committee in compiling the questionnaire 
appended to this opinion. 
2.1.4. The questionnaire makes an express distinc­
tion between: 
— the easing of traffic congestion in conurbation 
or on the links between them, and 
— the improvement in the structure and level of 
development of less-developed regions. The Committee thinks that such a distinction is of 
decisive importance when it comes to determining 
the priority of projects in terms of Community 
interest. 
The importance of projects in Community conur­
bations will often be immediately clear because they 
help to relieve bottlenecks. However, one should 
not fail to recognize that projects which serve 
mainly to open up less-developed areas are capable 
of giving a considerable boost to these areas' struc­
tural development and may thus help to relieve 
congestion in conurbations, too. 
It is highly probable that no projects from the mari­
time transport, ports and air transport sectors have 
been included in the first phase of the experimental 
programme because this important distinction has 
been overlooked. 
2.1.5. The Committee therefore proposes that the 
Commission take account of the questionnaire 
when it examines 
— which projects are to be finally included in the 
first phase of the experimental programme, and 
— which projects are to be supported out of the 
funds to be made available for 1983. 
The ESC will have to receive details on the individ­
ual projects, e.g. on the basis of its questionnaire, 
before it can give its views on which projects are 
worth supporting because of their paramount 
importance for the Community. 
2.2. Evaluation method 
2.2.1. The purpose of the evaluation method is to 
assess the relative importance of projects to the 
Community as a whole on the basis of individual 
details about the projects (collected, for example, 
with the aid of the appended questionnaire). 
2.2.2. This is done within the framework of Com­
munity-oriented cost-benefit assessments on the 
basis of background data about the economic, social 
and demographic structure of the Community 
regions affected, and involves appraisal and predic­
tion of the transport and other repercussions. 
19.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/7 
The impact of the project is: 
— quantified in physical units, 
— evaluated in terms of Community interest. 
2.2.3. It is doubtful whether all the repercussions 
can be evaluated in financial terms, as envisaged in 
the Commission final document (1981). Further­
more, in many respects such an approach would be 
unsound theoretically. It would be better to have a 
points rating given by experts, combined with a 
Community interest weighting (based on an assess­
ment from the point of view of Community policy). 
In this connection, the Committee considers that the 
Commission should amend its document of 16 Sep­
tember 1981 on the evaluation of Community 
interest in decision-making, so as to introduce a 
multi-criteria analysis of the type described in 
Annex 2 to that document. 
2.2.4. At all events, the ESC must play a part in 
evaluating and determining the importance of 
infrastructure projects in terms of Community 
policy. 
3. Funding of Community infrastructure projects 
3.1. Funds to be provided by the Community 
3.1.1. The Commission sets out from two assump­
tions: 
— that the Community will set aside approxi­
mately 300 000 000 ECU for Community infra­
structure support over the next three years, 
— that, on average, the Community will not meet 
more than 20 % of a project's total cost. 
On this basis, the Commission puts the total cost of 
the projects to be assisted under the experimental 
programme at 1 500 000 000 ECU. If, however, the 
actual budget disbursement for 1982 is taken to be 
10 000 000 ECU and that for 1983 15 000 000 ECU, 
Community support over three years will be only 
50 000 000 ECU at the most. Under the assumptions 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1983. set out above, this corresponds to a total cost of 
only 250 000 000 ECU — a very disappointing 
figure in the light of the potential impact on 
employment of infrastructure investment. 
3.1.2. If the Community wishes to make a serious 
effort to speed up the implementation of infrastruc­
ture projects of Community interest, then co-financing 
will have to be: 
— adequate, and 
— sustained over a certain period. 
One possibility would be to have a programme 
which covers a number of years, and to vary the 
Community contribution in the light of the Com­
munity interest of the project concerned (i.e. the 
contribution could be more than 20 %). 
3.2. Methods of funding 
The Committee would point out that the Govern­
ment of a Member State drew up a transport memo­
randum for the European Council in Stuttgart in 
which it once again raised the question of infrastruc­
ture projects being funded out of the Community 
budget. 
The Committee thinks that it should be possible for 
the Community to part-finance infrastructure pro­
jects in various ways, so as to make it easier for con­
siderable sums to be provided. In addition to invest­
ment grants from the Community budget, it should 
be possible: 
— to provide interest subsidies and repayment 
guarantees for funds raised on the capital mar­
ket, 
— to make use of the Community's Regional 
Development Fund where projects are of major 
importance for regional development, 
— to give consideration to the possibility of estab­
lishing a special fund financed from national 
charges for the use of infrastructure. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
No C 341/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Questionnaire concerning the Community interest of selected transport infrastructure projects in the 
Community 
1. Name of project. 
2. Does the project serve mainly to: 
(a) ease traffic congestion in conurbations? 
(b) improve the development of less-developed regions? 
3. Extent of project, as measured by: 
(a) area covered; 
(b) number of tracks/lanes or other important lines of communication; 
(c) investment. 
4. Description of economic environment of the project: 
(a) population of regions concerned; 
(b) domestic product of regions concerned; 
(c) transport links between regions concerned; 
(d) trade between regions concerned. 
5. Transport repercussions of the project: 
(a) improvement of links between centres or conurbations, or with their supply, market or 
recreation areas: 
— reduction of time per journey, 
— expected number of journeys (passengers and goods), 
— reduction in transport costs. 
(b) impact on accident risks; 
(c) impact on other routes or modes of transport. 
6. Financial repercussions: 
(a) expected level and composition of investment (see also 3 (c)); 
(b) intended financing; 
(c) expected level of operating and maintenance costs. 
7. Economic repercussions: 
(a) expected extent of the change in the economic situation in regions concerned (regional 
domestic product); 
(b) employment (during construction, and when the infrastructure is fully operational). 
8. Regional repercussions: 
(a) expected improvement in the structure and level of development of less-developed 
regions; 
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/9 
(b) expected easing of congestion in conurbations or on the links between them. 
9. Environmental repercussions (expected reduction in environmental pollution — exhaust 
gases, noise, use of land) in: 
(a) conurbations; 
(b) recreation areas. 
10. Repercussions on energy consumption (expected reduction in energy used per passenger/ 
tonne mile, especially scare types of energy (petroleum)). 
11. Social repercussions through improvement of the working conditions of those employed in 
transport. 
12. Distribution of overall repercussions between: 
(a) the Member State or national traffic; 
(b) Community or cross-frontier traffic. 
The answers to the individual questions should as far as possible be illustrated by tables. 
13. Has a cost-benefit assessment (cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, multi­
dimensional effect analysis, etc.) been carried out for the scheme? What is the gist of this 
assessment? 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a research programme to be 
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community 
and for the European Economic Community (1984 to 1987) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 225 of 23 August 1983, page 7. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 24 June 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Atomic Energy Community and Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Atomic Energy Community, and in particular 
Article 7 thereof and the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 235 thereof, of the European Communities on 1 July 1983 for an 
opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision 
adopting a research programme to be implemented 
by the Joint Research Centre for the European 
Atomic Energy Community and for the European 
Economic Community (1984 to 1987) ('), 
Having regard to the request made by the Council (') OJ No C 225, 23. 8. 1983.