C 226/22 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions on Cohesion and transport’
(2000/C 226/09)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,
having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport
(COM(1998) 806 final of 14 January 1999);
having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and, in particular, Title XV (Trans-
European networks) and Title XVII (Economic and social cohesion);
having regard to the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) presented
at the informal meeting of EU ministers responsible for spatial planning held in Noordwijk on 9 and
10 June 1997;
having regard to the European Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 (1)o n
Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, and the Proposal
for a European Parliament and Council Decision, currently under discussion, amending this decision (2);
having regard to the Bureau decision of 2 June 1999 to draw up an opinion on this subject in accordance
with the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to directCommission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion and Cross-Border
and Inter-Regional Cooperation to prepare this opinion;
having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Trans-European Networks, Transport and
Information Society (Commission 3) (rapporteur: Mr Tabakidis, mayor of Anargyron, GR/PSE),
having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 390/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999
(rapporteur: Mr Valca ´rcel Siso, president of the Autonomous Community of Murcia, ESP/PPE),
adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session of 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April).
1.Introduction consolidate and develop the synergies between cohesion and
transport needs to be approached with the utmost rigour and
caution.
1.1. ‘Economic and social cohesion’ is enshrined in Article
B of the Treaty on European Union as a key instrument forachieving ‘economic and social progress which is balanced and
sustainable’ within the EU.
1.4. Against such a backdrop, the Communication on
Cohesion and transport, submitted by the European Com-1.2. Furthermore, as is noted in the Communication onmission to the Council, European Parliament, the EconomicCohesion and transport examined in the present opinion, itand Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,has long been acknowledged that there is a correlation betweenshould be unequivocally welcomed and favourably assessed.levels of economic and social development and availability ofThis is the case not only because the communication demon-transport infrastructure and services.strates the EU’s efforts to date in support of cohesion and
transport, but also, and in particular, because it reveals a
resolute will to make progress and overcome the limitations1.3. However, the relationship between transport and over-which currently remain. To provide very specific examples, theall development (and the basis for the latter, i.e. economic andcommunication:social cohesion) is extremely complex both in theory and in
practice. For this reason, any analysis or policy designed to
— notes how sectoral policies liberalising transport services
could result in disadvantages for certain population groups (1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.
(2) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14. or regions;
8.8.2000 EN C 226/23 Official Journal of the European Communities
— highlights how some disadvantages should be prevented 1.9. One of the most significant objectives of Community
policy is cohesion, i.e. the creation of conditions enabling the and corrected by a transport policy which;
various regions of Europe to have an equal stake in develop-
ment. This is referred to explicitly in the new Treaty (Treaty of— maintains certain services using public funding andAmsterdam), specifically in Article 2 thereof.
— reduces disparities between regions regarding accessi-
bility.1.10. From as early as 1988, with the re-shaped Structural
Funds, the Community put into practice its intention topromote social and economic cohesion politically and econ-1.5. On this basis, the Committee of the Regions wishes toomically. Later, in 1993, when the Cohesion Fund wasaddress the following issues:integrated into the Structural Funds, Community policy took
on even more specific objectives, namely investment in the
— the instruments available for assessing results in the field trans-European networks. At the same time, the European
of cohesion and transport; Investment Bank has been working towards the same political
goal by providing loans for regional development works as a
matter of priority.— the differentiation of modal and environmental policies in
heartland and outlying EU regions;
— remote and island regions, and the role which the EU’s
ports are to play in dealing with these;
2.Transport and cohesion
— the effects of the abandonment and closure of secondary
transport networks on the process of depopulation of
2.1. The role of transport, in terms of both infrastructure disadvantaged inland mountain regions of Europe;
and the provision of services, is clearly crucial to the develop-
ment of any region.— progress towards greater internalisation of costs by gradu-
ally introducing infrastructure pricing systems;
2.2. The relationship between economic growth and devel-— the coordination of policies and instruments.opment of the transport system is scientifically attested even
though its exact form and variations have not been defined.
1.6. In tackling some of these specific points, and in the
final summary of conclusions, the COR stresses views and
proposals already put forward in its opinion on the Trans- 2.3. It is nevertheless clear that a more comprehensive
European transport network (
1). In all respects, the COR transport system, both in terms of infrastructure and services,
reiterates the line of argument and the views put forward in is crucial to the development of the various regions, in both
this earlier opinion. the short and long term.
1.7. There are major geographical, economic, demographic,
2.4. In the short term, the planning, construction, operation cultural and social differences within the European Union.
and maintenance of the transport system help to create Regions with a high concentration of population and intense
jobs with direct implications for social integration and the economic activity usually enjoy a high standard of living while
economic prosperity of people living in the various regions. In at the same time there are regions which are lagging behind
the long term, the transport system has a direct influence on in their development and experiencing ever more severe
basic production parameters (the type of production, transport depopulation.
of raw materials, product distribution, storage arrangements
etc.).
1.8. Island and remote regions also have their own specific
features. These differences directly affect the rates of growth of
each region and, ultimately, their ability to participate on an2.5. The overall stimulation of economic activity in bothequal footing in the wider socio-economic construct which isthe manufacturing and service sectors (e.g. tourism) is one ofthe European Union.the most important roles of transport.
2.6. Transport is particularly important in areas of farming(1) Opinion based on the European Commission’s 1998 report on
and fisheries owing to the perishable nature of fresh agricul- the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future
tural and fishery produce which needs to be transported faster (COM(98) 614 final), (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293, 13.10.1999,
p. 9). than most manufactured goods.
C 226/24 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
2.7. The important spatial dimension of transport is also 2.12. The multiple effects of transport illustrate the import-
ance of taking local specifics into account in the planning and evident. Each region has different needs as regards the transport
system to be developed, in terms of both its technical infrastructure of transport in Europe. This is equally true
within Member States. It is therefore important to emphasise characteristics and its economic dimension. In some regions
the transport system has to be designed in such a way that it the ever greater need to respect and implement the subsidiarity
principle in the transport sector too. supports the production model (especially in industrial areas)
whereas in other regions, the development of public transport
is particularly crucial to promote the social integration of thepopulation (especially in remote or disadvantaged areas) and
to maintain the social and environmental balance (areas
surrounding large urban centres, concentration of traffic in the3.Instruments for assessing resultsEU core regions). The Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund
should be used to support investment in public passenger
transport systems which are environment-friendly and encour-
3.1. The direct relationship between Community transport age intermodality, in order to facilitate sustainable mobility in
policy and economic and social cohesion is clear from a joint cities, with due regard also to the accessibility of and links
analysis of Title XII (Trans-European networks) and Title XIV with trans-European networks.
(Economic and social cohesion) of the EC Treaty. Both titles
refer to the trans-European transport networks policy as an
instrument expected to provide a direct contribution to
strengthening economic and social cohesion. This task isdefined as ‘reducing disparities between the levels of develop-
2.8. It is important to emphasise that any inadequacies in ment of the various regions and the backwardness of the least
the transport system have a direct impact on the cost of living favoured regions or islands, including rural areas’ (the reference
since an inadequate system can function as a kind of informal to islands was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam).
taxation which increases the cost of products reaching the
consumer. These higher costs primarily affect the economically
weakest classes in society, and hence cohesion. In addition,3.2. Other more general approaches long advocated by thethis informal taxation which is associated with an inadequateEuropean Commission (White Paper on Growth, Competi-transport system also affects exports of goods produced intiveness and Employment, the challenges and ways forwardsuch regions.into the 21st century; 1993) and which have been duly
included in the Communication on cohesion and transport,
are those which tie in the establishment of transport infrastruc-
ture with job-creation.
2.9. In many cases, transport is associated with the concept
3.3. In this respect, it is the temporary creation of jobs of universal service and the public interest.
during the construction phases which first springs to mind.However, it is more worthwhile to focus on the creation of
permanent jobs (tied in with new conditions of accessibility
and costs) because the perspective is more long-term andbecause this type of new employment establishes an immediate
2.10. Typical examples of this are transporting the sick and permanent functional link between the competitiveness of
from remote areas to medical centres in urban areas, taking the productive machinery and economic and social cohesion.
children and young people to school, being able to respond
quickly to natural disasters in remote areas and fostering social
integration through contacts between different local cultures.3.4. Lastly, one positive aspect of Community measures in
the transport field must surely be greater generation and betterdistribution of income. This is the final outcome of reducing
disparities and generating employment which serves to suc-
cessfully complete the economic circle in furtherance ofeconomic and social cohesion.2.11. Against this background, transport should not be
judged on strictly economic criteria (economic viability), butconsidered in the context of a broader socio-economic and
environmental analysis. In this respect, it is important to 3.5. However, the COR takes the view that tying in
transport policy and economic and social cohesion will be no highlight that if lack of or inadequate basic services are not
offset by an efficient transport network that diminishes the more than a generic principle or wishful thinking if there are
no instruments to measure the specific impact of transport adverse effects of such deficiencies by providing access for the
population of isolated or disadvantaged regions, this will serve policy on economic and social cohesion. In short, and in very
general terms, this means measuring the extent to which to increase depopulation and reduce economic activity, thus
hampering returns on transport investment. The result in these Community transport policy and each of its individual instru-
ments contribute to achieving the following three key objec- regions is a vicious circle in which the growing lack of supply
generates a growing lack of demand and vice versa. tives:
8.8.2000 EN C 226/25 Official Journal of the European Communities
— boosting the competitiveness of the European economy; 4. Different policies for heartland, outlying, island and
landlocked areas
— establishing the conditions for sustainable mobility;
4.1. On previous occasions, the Committee of the Regions
has emphasised the need for Community transport policy to
take account of the individual problems posed in the different — and, of specific interest in this context, enhancing econ-
types of region within the EU, in each case seeking specific omic and social cohesion within the EU.
solutions to specific problems:
— ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems are more related 3.6. The lack of quantitative instruments (indicators and
to competitiveness and capacity and where the impact of measuring variables, evaluation procedures, etc.) is evident
external factors (particularly environmental ones) is crucial; both in specific measures and at the wider level of infrastruc-
ture networks and transport services. According to the Com-mittee’s information, the European Commission has in recent— ‘outlying areas’, where problems relating to income andyears been striving to improve matters, but even so:employment, accessibility, depopulation and economic
and social cohesion, are unavoidable and where the impact
of external factors may be relatively minor.— for a specific infrastructure, service, measure or project, it
is difficult to
4.2. It is equally important to take into account the so-
called Northern dimension. The more Northern countries— ascertain ‘ex ante’ the level of Community interest indiffer from other EU regions in terms of their climate, situation,line with the cohesion policies, andeconomic geography and geopolitics. The sparse population
and sheer size of Northern regions lend them specific features
which need to be addressed by Community transport policy.— evaluate ‘ex post’ the extent to which the objectivesThere are also specific transport problems in many mountain-have been achieved; andous, landlocked and severely depopulated areas in the Southern
hinterland which should be given individual treatment.
— for policies and overall infrastructure and service networks,
it is difficult to4.3. The Communication on cohesion and transport states
that the needs in outlying regions have been taken into account
in designing the trans-European networks (
1). However, the
— determine whether the effort is actually being chan- COR voices its concern that although the needs of peripheral,
nelled in the right direction, and how accurately (or landlocked and island regions have obviously been taken into
with which overall or specific exceptions), and account, they have not been treated specifically or differently
to those of heartland regions. Such individual treatment, if
applied from the outset, would have been of considerable
value in helping to provide clear and quantifiable objectives in — identify instruments for strengthening or correcting
terms of accessibility and economic and social cohesion. the effects obtained.
4.4. The COR feels that the self-same examples cited by the3.7. Consequently, the COR wishes to propose that thecommunication in support of its theory (networks of airports‘horizontal’ R&D measures promoted under Community trans-and ports) actually confirm the doubts expressed by the COR.port policy include a careful consideration of the design andIt is all very well, from the point of view of accessibility thatpreparation of quantitative indicators and appropriate methodssmall airports in remote island regions (regional connectingso that the contribution of Community transport policies topoints and accessibility points in the airport system) have beenthe following areas may be continually assessed:included in the trans-European networks. However, other
selection criteria linked to traffic thresholds and an extremely
loose definition of ‘landlocked area’ have meant that many
— enhancing the competitiveness of the productive small regional connecting points and accessibility points in the
machinery; airport system have also been selected in heartland areas with
excellent land connections and none of the problems oflandlocked areas (in some cases, these points are less than
50 km apart). — achieving sustainable mobility and modal distribution;
— improving at least two basic factors of economic and social
cohesion, i.e. inter-regional accessibility and employment. (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 26.
C 226/26 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
4.5. The concern voiced regarding the consideration of 5.5. The European Commission honoured its commitment
by submitting a Proposal for a European Parliament and outlying areas in designing the trans-European networks is
reinforced by the conclusions of some studies requested by the Council Decision amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC (3).
The proposal includes maps identifying specific ports of European Commission. The following conclusions come as no
surprise and clearly reveal how the process works (1): Community interest, and ports and ‘intermodal transhipment
areas’ are incorporated into the trans-European combined
transport network. However, honouring the commitment — medium-sized cities in centrally located regions and located
should be regarded as a purely formal exercise given that the on the TEN nodes or corridors tend to obtain the major
Commission chose to identify all minor ports. accessibility gains;
— also, but to a lesser extent, the main metropolitan areas are5.6. From the point of view of outlying regions thisalso major beneficiaries from TEN implementation;conclusion cannot be looked on favourably, as the inclusion
of a large number of small ports in heartland regions detracts
— for outlying and remote regions to gain the maximum from the special importance of ports for transport in outlying
benefit from the TEN, complementary investment in regions. Community resources are limited and if almost all
secondary networks will be required. ports have access to them the overall effectiveness of their
implementation will be drastically reduced. The European
Commission’s approach may also run counter to current
trends in maritime transport, encouraging increasing specialis-ation and function-based ranking of port systems. 5.The role of outlying ports
5.1. Ports and maritime transport networks, as pillars of 5.7. The COR considers that the best approach would be to
multimodality, are of particular interest to outlying regions, combine restrictive selection criteria relating to volume of
most of which have extensive coastlines and some of which traffic or activity with open but well-defined criteria based on
are extremely remote island regions. For such regions, medium- the region’s specific needs and accessibility. Such an approach,
sized and small ports could play a crucial role in providing in theory applicable to any of the transport modes included in
economical transport capable of very successfully filling the the trans-European networks, would help to best reconcile the
gaps in land transport (both the physically unavoidable and objectives of competitiveness and of economic and social
the historically-based gaps). cohesion.
5.2. Although mentioned previously under policies suited
to outlying regions (see point 3: Different policies for outlying
6.Infrastructure charges and heartland areas), the case of ports within Community
transport policy merits specific comment in light of the special
treatment of ports in the process of defining the trans-
6.1. In 1998 the European Commission submitted a White European transport infrastructure networks.
Paper on Fair payment for infrastructure use: a phased
approach to a common transport infrastructure charging
5.3. At the outset, the European Commission and the framework in the EU (
4) advocating the general application of
Council of Ministers decided not to identify any specific ports the ‘marginal social cost’ charging principle (including a
and simply set the conditions for identifying ‘port projects of definite internalisation of external costs). As is well known,
common interest’. To justify this approach (2), the Commission and with considerable differences remaining between EU
cited the special nature of port activity, which meant that free Member States, charges for the use of infrastructures are
competition could be affected if some ports were included in currently levied only for roads (toll-paying motorways and
the trans-European networks and other were not. Such reason- some large infrastructure works) and partially or not at all for
ing was plausible, but could largely be applied to other rail, ports, airports and inland waterways.
infrastructures for which the proposal did actually set out the
relevant plans.
6.2. The COR points out that building marginal costs into
charges assumes some crucial factors in the structure of cost5.4. During the process leading up to the adoption offunctions. This means that costs must rise with the volume ofEuropean Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/ECproduction, and need to be steady and attributable in allon Community guidelines for the development of the trans-aspects, otherwise the concept of marginal costs is meaning-European transport network, the Parliament managed toless. Unfortunately, the capacity of almost all basic infrastruc-secure the inclusion of a formal declaration committing theture and, in particular, the capacity of transport infrastructureEuropean Commission to submit a new proposal in 1997, socannot be altered gradually. Consequently, the COR considersthat maritime ports would be treated in the same way asthat there are even shortcomings in the theory behind theairports (identification of specific ports on the basis of size andpricing policies advocated by the Commission.spatial criteria).
(3) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, pg. 14. (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 27.
(2) COM(94) 106 final — paragraph 76. (4) COM(98) 466 final.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/27 Official Journal of the European Communities
6.3. Another theoretically debatable argument put forward and the resulting wealth. Less economically developed regions,
on the other hand, would be less able to recover costs in that in the European Commission’s White Paper is the assumption
that ‘marginal social costs’ will result in an optimum price the potential benefits derived from pricing will be limited by
the relatively weak capacity of their economic systems. ensuring the best allocation of resources. Such an assumption
works in theory but ignores the fact that in order to obtain theoptimum price the ‘marginal cost’ needs to match the ‘average
6.9. In conclusion, the COR considers that the issue of cost’. As a result of this oversight, which attempts to circum-
charging for the use of infrastructure must be addressed with vent the problem of not being able to alter transport infrastruc-
rigour and caution. ture capacity gradually, the White Paper becomes tangled up
in the problem of the capacity-price ratio without finding a
satisfactory solution.
7.Coordination of policies and instruments
6.4. If, however, the theoretical and practical problems
posed by the possible inclusion of set-up capacity costs are
resolved, infrastructure charges may provide an effective 7.1. The Committee of the Regions takes the view that the
instrument for addressing capacity problems in large, con- coordination of policies and instruments available in the
gested infrastructures, problems of allocating resources within transport field poses a very wide range of complex problems.
the transport economy, and wider economic competitiveness The EU institutions have been examining these problems but
problems. every effort must be made to facilitate solutions.
7.2. First of all, there is the theoretical and practical 6.5. Much more debatable is whether infrastructure charges
coordination between liberalisation policies (seeking wide- constitute an effective instrument for or have an acceptable
spread implementation of market practices in the sector) and impact on addressing generic shortcomings related to accessi-
policies more directly linked to economic and social cohesion bility and cohesion objectives.
objectives, including, in particular, public utilities and trans-
European networks policies.
6.6. The Communication on cohesion and transport, refer-
ring to the White Paper (
1) itself, maintains that ‘... there is no7.3. Several paragraphs of the communication address thisreason to believe that, as a general rule, peripheral andproblem, with comments which are warmly welcomed by theless developed regions would be adversely affected by theCOR both for their specific content and for the underlyingapplication of a marginal cost charging scheme’. However, inconcern they reveal.a footnote still referring to the White Paper, the communi-
cation then:
7.4. The COR welcomes the communication’s comments
and proposals on transport policies and the activity of the — recognises that such charges should be differentiated so
European Commission. These should be further underscored that regions with less congestion and pollution would be
by the idea that competitiveness and cohesion are two equally less affected and;
significant objectives to be jointly and equitably achieved.
— calls for flexible and gradual implementation of price
reforms in those instances where there would be concern 7.5. A second problematic aspect of coordination relates to
that higher transport user charges would impede the financial policies and instruments for spatial planning and for
economic development of peripheral or less developed transport infrastructure and services.
areas.
7.6. The correlation between land occupation and use and
the structure of transport networks is even more self-evident 6.7. The fact that the communication voices so many
than the correlation between economic and social develop- concerns, even opening the door to a possible subsidy or
ment levels and availability of transport infrastructure and compensation scheme for this purpose, demonstrates that
services (paragraph 1.2). The communication shows that there are solid grounds for the COR’s caution. In short, the
most of the Community resources invested in transport possible impact of general charges for the use of infrastructures
infrastructure do not come from specific transport funds (the on economic and social cohesion has not yet been adequately
budget line for trans-European networks and the Cohesion studied. Furthermore, when appropriate, the impact should be
Fund for trans-European networks), but rather from other assessed in terms of transport costs and taxation.
Structural Funds with the direct objectives of regional develop-
ment and spatial planning (ERDF, Regis, Interreg, etc.).
6.8. The COR considers that pricing could pose the problem
that economically developed regions would be better placed
7.7. In future, and as is rightly stated in various parts of to recoup costs through a future increase in economic activity
the communication, the problem of accessibility should be
resolved by taking joint account of the main trans-European
networks, the networks enabling access and distribution to
and from these, and local networks. (1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 37.
C 226/28 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
7.8. In this regard, the COR feels that it might now be to developing the most vulnerable regions and enhancing
opportunities for the least favoured groups. appropriate to establish a complementary sectoral instrument
similar to the current Community Support Frameworks (CSF).
Such an instrument would provide an overall view of all
9.2. From this point of view, the Committee considers that transport networks and services and give an overall structure
ensuring the different EU regions have an equal stake in to the corresponding Community policies and instruments.
economic and social prosperity constitutes the cornerstone of
Community policy. In this respect, transport is an important
7.9. The third and final aspect of coordination relates to means of implementing regional policy and should be regarded
the financing arrangements. Here the COR is particularly keen as such.
that formulas be sought to involve private funding in the
development of infrastructure and public-private schemes.
9.3. The Committee reiterates the line of argument and the
views put forward in its opinion of 3 June 1999 on the
7.10. The COR assumes that the use of private resources to trans-European transport network (1), containing a detailed
fund infrastructure will be an inevitable fact-of-life in the examination of subjects which are only briefly or indirectly
future. The COR also feels that the private sector’s involvement considered in the present opinion.
in infrastructure funding poses many more difficulties in less
developed outlying, island and landlocked regions, where the
volumes of traffic and transport mean that the financial return 9.4. The Committee takes the view that Community trans-
on investment provides little (or less) incentive. port policy, in particular trans-European network policy,
should help to create a new ‘inter-regional accessibility map’
for the EU. This map should reduce disparities between regions
7.11. In this respect, the COR calls upon all the EU and lay down minimum accessibility thresholds for travel to
institutions and players concerned to employ the maximum and from all parts of the EU.
creativity and effort in designing and fine-tuning joint schemes.
Such schemes should either involve the public and private
sector at once or combine entirely private intermediate funding 9.5. The Committee believes that rigorously measuring the
(construction and running) with a final payment which is impact of Community transport policy on the competitiveness
totally or partially public (shadow tolls, etc.). of EU industry and EU economic and social cohesion, is vital
for evaluating this policy and for devising and applying
supportive or corrective measures; the problem of increasing
environmental pollution in the core regions should be includedhere.8.Transport and cohesion in the run-up to the accession
9.6. The Committee urges the institutions, and the Euro-8.1. The Commission communication makes specific refer-pean Commission in particular, to ensure that the immediateence to Community policy towards the applicant countries.planning of Community transport policy includes provisionThis policy is based on the same criteria and proportionsfor fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with aas those so far applied within the Community. Particularview to continual assessment of Community transport policy’simportance is attached to the fact that the new Member Statescontribution to competitiveness and economic and socialwill have to be in a socio-economically cohesive relationshipcohesion (accessibility and employment).with the present Member States. Transport will play a major
economic, environmental and social role in the enlarged
Europe.9.7. The Committee considers that the problems to be
addressed by Community transport policy vary somewhat
throughout the different parts of the EU, as there are:8.2. From the beginning of 2000, a new Community fund
(ISPA) will provide resources primarily to finance transportinfrastructure in the applicant countries, with particular— ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems relate to competi-
emphasis on extending the trans-European networks to thesetiveness, capacity and pollution problems and where thecountries. The aim of this policy is to ensure that the newimpact of external factors is crucial;Member States have a level of services with a high socio-
economic value.
— ‘outlying, island and landlocked areas’, where problems
relating to income and employment, accessibility, depopu-
lation and economic and social cohesion, are unavoidableand where the impact of external factors may be relatively9.Summary of conclusionsminor.
9.1. The Committee of the Regions broadly welcomes
the concern and willingness demonstrated by the European (1) 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities
Commission’s Communication on Cohesion and transport, for the future, COM(98) 614 final, (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293,
13.10.1999, p. 9). with a view to boosting the contributions of these policies
8.8.2000 EN C 226/29 Official Journal of the European Communities
9.8. The Committee believes that acknowledging the spec- — the need to make best use of Community resources in
keeping with criteria and objectives striking a balance ific nature of the problems faced by individual regions and the
need to find appropriate solutions demonstrates how vital it is between environmental repercussions, competitiveness
and cohesion; to implement the subsidiarity principle more effectively at
local and regional level.— to introduce demanding selection criteria in relation to
capacity and volume of traffic and transport;
9.9. The Committee takes the view that such circumstances
— to introduce more open but well-defined criteria regarding should be taken into account by Community transport policy
accessibility and spatial planning. so that the most appropriate solutions are implemented in
each region.
9.13. The Committee urges the European Commission to
press ahead with the analysis and propose specific solutions9.10. The Committee stresses that under no circumstancesand measures for the theoretical and practical problems whichshould the quest for the most appropriate solution in eachmay result from infrastructure pricing policies based onregion be allowed to undermine equal opportunities for the‘marginal social costs’, particularly with regard to:least favoured EU populations and regions.
— the repercussions on modal distribution and transport
costs in heartland and outlying areas;9.11. The Committee asks the European Commission, in
its transport policy reports, assessments and action, to be ever — the creation of capacity and accessibility in less developed
mindful of the need for a differentiated approach tailored toregions;
match the characteristics of each region.
— the tax-related repercussions and their presumably differ-
ent impact on ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ regions.9.12. The Committee calls upon the institutions most
directly involved — i.e. the European Parliament, Council of9.14. The Committee asks all parties concerned at Euro-Ministers and European Commission — in the forthcomingpean, national and regional and local level to ensure thereview of the Community guidelines for the development ofcoordination of policies and financial instruments for regionalthe trans-European transport network:development and spatial and transport planning. A useful basis
for this could be a global overview of all transport networks— to adopt a more committed stance onand services.
— the overall planning of infrastructure and transport 9.15. The Committee urges all European institutions and
services, socio-economic players to give thought to appropriate specific
formulas for involving private capital in the financing ofinfrastructure in outlying and less developed regions. — the need to specialise and rank unimodal networks,
Brussels, 12 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT