OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on ' Legislative Commission programme for transport/ The common transport policy action programme 1995-2000'
Date: 1995-11-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Commission, action programme, common transport policy, legislative programme (EU), organisation of transport













EUR-Lex - 51995IE1305 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IE1305

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on ' Legislative Commission programme for transport/ The common transport policy action programme 1995-2000'  


Official Journal C 039 , 12/02/1996 P. 0043 





Opinion on 'Legislative Commission programme for  transport/ The common transport policy action programme 1995-2000'(96/C 39/09)On 30  March  1995 and 4  July 1995 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Article  23, paragraph 3 of  the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an Opinion on the 'Legislative Commission programme for  transport/The common transport policy action programme 1995-2000'. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's  work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8  November 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Wright. At its 330th Plenary Session (meeting of 22  November 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 1. Introduction: aims and coverage of the Opinion1.1. The Commission's annual  legislative and work programme lays down guidelines for those areas on which policies are to focus  in the coming year. It offers the chance to review the extent to which strategies and projects have  been properly implemented or new ideas and aims are to be developed. 1.2. The aim of the Own-initiative Opinion in hand is to produce an assessment of the transport  policy programme from the point of view of the Committee, mainly on the basis of the positions  already agreed in previous Opinions. 1.3. The Committee supports the demand of the European Parliament in its resolution of 15  March  1995 () that the Commission should arrange an early and open debate on the annual work programme by  adopting it by  October of the previous year and publishing it in a way that more opportunity is  given to reflect and comment on it by others. The Committee acknowledged the specific role of the  EP in this context. 1.4. An assessment of the transport policy programme of 1995 will make proposals for forthcoming  initiatives in transport policy. In this way it will point out the main demands of the Committee  and still unresolved questions which have been raised in previous reports of the Committee. It will  also make clear to others the Committee's main points of view in this field, irrespective  (independently of) of single specific opinions. 1.5. The Opinion will also address the points raised in the Communication from the Commission to  the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the  Regions, titled 'The Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000'. 1.6. The 'Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000' was published by the Commission on 12   July 1995 following a call for such a programme from the European Parliament and the Economic and  Social Committee. 2. Unresolved questions arising from previous Opinions2.1. This Own-initiative Opinion is to  assess the Commission's Transport Policy on the basis of positions already reached. It is  important, therefore, to highlight the main questions which have been raised hitherto in order to  determine whether or not they are addressed by either the Commission's legislative programme, or  the Communication on the Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000. Whilst the Committee  warmly welcomes the increasing attention given by the Commission to the need for a common transport  policy as set out in the White Paper, and is encouraged by the further developments in this regard  detailed in the CTP Action Programme 1995-2000, a number of longstanding issues remain to be  addressed. 2.2. The Committee has drawn particular attention to: - the Commission appears to have given insufficient attention to the structural shifts evident in  the economies of all Member States and the implications thereof for transport use and modal  development (CES 1006/93, paragraph 1.1.4); - the difficulty faced by most Member States of reconciling the advocacy of liberal economic  policies stressing choice and competition with regard to transport, and the advocacy of subsidies  to promote particular transport systems and usage (CES 1006/93, paragraphs 1.3.1 and 1.3.2); - the failure of the Commission to publish data concerning the consumption and impact of transport  modes across the EU in recent years, and the absence of forward projections of the supply of, and  demand for, transport within and external to the EU in order to guide the development of a Common  Transport Policy (CES 1006/93, paragraph 3.2.1); - the need for the Commission to provide detailed guidelines on the issues of external costs and  green taxation arising, e.g. from pollution and congestion and how such costs could be internalized  by modal and inter-modal transport suppliers (CES 1006/93, paragraphs 5.2.1.1-5.2.1.4 inclusive).  The Committee recognizes that the Commission may have been constrained by the reluctance of some  Member States to provide data. To this end, the Committee calls for the earliest possible  publication of the Commissioner's promised Green Paper on this subject. In the interest of an  informed debate on this vital area of interest, it would also be helpful if the Commission could  give an indication of the consequences of the application of these guidelines to the concrete  policies proposed in the Green Paper. In the meantime, the Committee would draw attention to its  Own-initiative Opinion on infrastructure costs in the road freight transport sector as a basis for  comparison with other transport modes (CES 643/95); - the need for the Commission to draw up a definitive 'concept plan' to guide the development of  Trans-European Networks (TEN) and take account of the impact on the economy as a whole, on  transport policy and on social policy objectives (CES 1305/94, paragraphs 1.2. and 8.4). 3. The Commission's work programme for 1995General comments3.1. The Committee welcomes the  Commission's general aim outlined in paragraph 1.15 of the Work Programme, namely the achievement  of an integrated, safe, efficient, competitive and environment-friendly transport system which  takes into account the needs of users and workers in this sector. 3.2. The Committee supports the main new legislative proposals - some of which have been, or are  currently, the subject of separate Opinions from the Committee - and looks forward to receiving the  details of these proposals as and when they are produced. 3.3. The Committee is looking forward to receiving details and timescales associated with proposals  pending implementation as listed in the Work Programme. 3.4. The Committee welcomes the two communications listed in the Work Programme, in particular that  on the development of the Common Transport Policy Action Programme in the medium and long term. The  Committee is pleased that the communication on sea transport over short distances has been  published, looks forward to the White Paper on air-traffic control and is especially pleased to  acknowledge the forthcoming Green Paper on multi-modal passenger transport, the so called 'people's  network'. The Committee believes this will play an important role in building an effective and  complementary inter-modal sub-system to consider alongside the Trans-European network. The  Committee also looks forward to the long awaited document from the Commission on maritime  transport. 3.5. The Committee places a high priority on finding appropriate ways of identifying and  apportioning costs to the environmental performance of the transport industry. It therefore looks  forward to the proposed study by the Commission on environmental improvements and the  internalization of environmental costs. The Committee supports the idea of a wide ranging debate on  this issue and would urge the Commission to make available, as soon as practicable, the expert  studies and testimony they have drawn upon in finalizing their study. 3.6. Similarly, the Committee has frequently stressed the importance of, and the need to improve  working conditions in the industry, particularly in those situations where excessive hours of work  might impair health and safety. To this end, the Committee, whilst endorsing the continuation of  social dialogue in this respect, and mindful of the Commission's well established policy on safety,  is disappointed that the Work Programme does not contain more imaginative and far reaching  proposals for the targeting of specific improvements in this regard. The Work Programme seemingly  ignores the call for greater attention to be given to boosting 'social productivity' as set out in  the White Paper on Social Policy (COM(94) 333). By 'social productivity' we mean additional growth  in productivity that flows directly from improvements in aspects of working conditions and work  organization that are designed to promote more effective use of the intellectual and physical  endowments of the workforce. The new initiatives and legislative proposals, proposals pending and  debates signalled in paragraph 3.1 of the works programmes, whilst welcome, do not match the clear  and unequivocal support given in the White Paper on Social Policy to the need to improve working  conditions as a precondition to the achievement of higher levels of social productivity, cohesion  and competitiveness. 3.7. The Committee is in no doubt concerning the importance of research and development in the  Transport Industry. This was reflected in the Committee Opinion on the Council's Decision  concerning the implementation of the fourth European Community framework programme for research and  technological development (COM(94) 68 and COM(94) 70). To this end, it supports the Commission's  aim to promote the utilization of results from earlier studies [paragraph 1.15, point (iv)],  although it regrets that more detail is not given of precisely which results and which earlier  studies, together with a clearer indication of how the Commission intends to secure greater  utilization of these results. The launching of initiatives for joint industrial projects in respect  of the car, train and plane of the future [paragraph 1.8, point (iii)] are to be welcomed but are  woefully late. In the case of the car, for example, such an initiative is likely to be at least  three years behind a similar initiative launched by President Clinton for the US in 1993. 3.8. The Committee's general impression of the work programme is that it builds steadily on the  White Paper on the future development of the Common Transport Policy. The Committee's long standing  criticisms concerning omissions and conceptional contradictions, as outlined earlier in paragraph  2.2 of this document, remain largely unaddressed, however. The exceptions would appear to be the  issue of environmental costs and the need to provide guidance to ensure internalization of such  costs where appropriate. For this, the Commission promises to undertake a study. In addition, with  regard to a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN), the Commission's existing proposals concerning  the development of such a network including the financing of such a network [paragraph 1.7, point  (ii)], have been before the European Parliament and Council this year. Whilst it is acknowledged  that such guidelines are to be warmly welcomed, the Committee feels bound to point out, however,  that this falls some way short of the call for a 'definitive concept plan' for a transport TEN as  put forward by the Committee in its Opinion (). It also stands in sharp contrast to the overall  guidelines for and definition of a 'general plan' for the trans-European telecommunications  networks promised by the work programme in paragraph 1.7, point (i). Crucial to the development of  a Transport TEN is the issue of intermodality and interoperability. The work programme pays scant  regard to the need to examine the existing strengths and weaknesses of the Community various  transport systems in these critical respects. 4. The Common Transport Policy Action Programme 1995-2000: Communication from the  CommissionGeneral comments4.1. The Committee broadly welcomes the main purpose of the CTP Action  Programme (as detailed in the Communication), namely, to give all institutions of the EU as well as  interested parties 'a clear indication of the Commission's policy intentions ... and the  implication of new Treaty provisions on transport matters'. It further endorses the Commission's  intention, in so doing, to 'contribute to improved transparency in relation to policy under  preparation'. The Committee congratulates the clear way the Action Programme is set out and  particularly appreciates the details of intended actions and timescales. The Committee recognizes  that this is an important development insofar as transparency and accountability are concerned. The  Commission's initiative in this regard is commendable. 4.2. The Committee is particularly pleased to be able to comment upon the CTP Action Programme at  this early stage in its formulation and would strongly endorse such an arrangement to help foster a  constructive dialogue between the Committee and the Commission in the foreseeable future. 4.3. The Committee regrets, however, that yet again the Commission has produced a Communication  which is bereft of supporting statistical material. It may be argued that a Communication setting  out the CTP Agenda for the years 1995-2000 does not need to be located against a statistically  verified, quantitative backcloth. Such an argument would not convince this Committee, and would in  any case be undermined by the practice of other parts of the Commission who regularly issue  communications backed up by extensive statistical analysis. It is to be hoped that DG VII will heed  this Committee's long standing call for an up-to-date statistical analysis of the EU's transport  industry, and provide such a document to inform the debate which the CTP Agenda Communication is  evidently intended to promote. As it stands, the document is in need of further amplification. With  the exception of the earlier White Paper on 'The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy'  the action programme makes no reference to previous proposals and policy documents concerning the  development of the transport sector in the Union. For example, there is no linkage with initiatives  being pursued elsewhere in the Commission like the implications of telematics for the transport  industry, the development of 'black box' technology for road safety in heavy goods vehicles or the  development of the Auto Industry Forum. In consequence, it is difficult to see what is really new  and original in the action plan and what is a reiteration of previous proposals. 4.4. The Committee concurs with the view that progress on transport policy matters was very slow  during the first 25 years of applying the Rome Treaty. It also agrees that the White Paper on the  CTP established a faster momentum in policy formulation and implementation. The Maastricht Treaty  which followed marked a further phase in this process, particularly with its commitment to develop  a Community-wide transport policy to boost the integration and competitiveness of the single  market, whilst recognizing the importance of safety and environmental sustainability. The  Maastricht Treaty also contained explicit support for Trans-European Networks. Against this  background, the Communication rightly observes that setting the CTP agenda 'necessitates a thorough  economic and political analysis as well as a careful selection of issues for treatment at Community  level'. Whilst sharing this view, the Committee has some doubts whether the Maastricht Treaty will  overcome the constraints imposed by differing national viewpoints and practices, which have  hitherto affected the pace of policy making with regard to transport. This is why the notion of  development of a Transport Union is emerging as an expression of a radical and determined approach  to bring transport policy to the forefront of European policy making. 4.5. It would not be appropriate to develop the detail of a Transport Union in this report. It is  sufficient to say that the Committee broadly supports the thrust of this idea and would strongly  commend it to the Commission as worthy of further study and discussion. 4.6. To achieve economic well being and social cohesion in Europe, the action programme  acknowledges the importance of a transport system which is efficient, accessible and competitive.  It should meet users' needs and the imperatives of a high level of safety and of the protection of  the environment. The Committee has no difficulty in supporting these broad goals. It would,  however, congratulate the Action Programme for raising the status of system safety and  environmental protection to that of an 'imperative'. 4.7. The Committee believes that the general issue of working time has been seriously neglected in  the Action Programme. Action planned in 1995 and 1996 in this regard consists of no more than a  follow-up dialogue with social partners on aspects of working time in road transport, inland  waterways, air transport and railways. Taking the longer term perspective (1997-2000) the Action  Programme only lists a follow-up to ILO/IMO discussions on working time for maritime transport. The  effects of excessive working time on fatigue and hence on safety must be studied in detail and  appropriate proposals brought forward where justified as a result of such studies. 4.8. The rolling programme for the period 1995-2000 sets out policies and actions in three  fundamental areas: i)improving quality, developing integrated and competitive transport systems based on advanced  technologies which also contribute to environmental and safety objectives; ii)improving the functioning of the single market in order to promote efficiency, choice and a  user friendly provision of transport services while safeguarding social standards; iii)broadening the external dimension by improving transport links with third countries and  fostering the access of EU operators to other transport markets. Although the Committee would support actions and policies in these areas, it regrets profoundly the  failure of the Action Programme to highlight the fundamental aspect of job creation. The Committee  has regretted the job losses which have occurred due to changing demands and operating practices in  certain transport operations, but it is equally encouraged by the actual and potential creation of  new jobs occasioned by new technologies and expanded services due to the continually increasing  demands for the movement of goods and expanded passenger services. Current examples can be seen in  the development of the Channel Tunnel and its associated operations and the expansion of regional  airports and air services. As is the case in other industries changes in individual working  patterns can also make a contribution to job creation and the particular importance of working time  in transport industries (highlighted in paragraph 3.7 above) may also be a significant factor. It  is plain that there is no simple link between a reduction in working time and the creation of new  job opportunities. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile recalling that the Committee's Own-initiative  Opinion on working time (Co-Rapporteurs: Mrs van den Burg and Mr Whitworth) has concluded that the  employment situation generally could be significantly improved by the reorganization and reduction  of working time, with a view to balancing productivity and flexibility of business and operating  hours in line with production needs and customer demand. Recent changes achieved in the automobile  industry suggest that increased flexibility and enhanced productivity can be supported by  reductions in working time. In the Committee's view, the Action Programme would be strengthened if  it distinguished and emphasized the job creation potential flowing from changes in working time as  well as job creation from the likely growth of the sector promoted by the completion of the single  market. 4.9. The Committee readily accepts that the Action Programme represents a useful follow on from the  White Paper on CTP. The Commission is to be commended for the unequivocal emphasis it has placed on  quality improvement, the need to complete the single market and the importance of the external  dimension. As it stands, however, the action programme has some flaws which need to be addressed.  Amongst other things it should: i)spell out the criteria to be used when making the 'careful selection of issues for treatment at  Community level' (page 1, paragraph 3); ii)provide much more detail as to how the various proposals for TEN's are linked to the Common  Transport Programme; iii)set out a planning timetable for the development and implementation of the 'Citizens' Network'  and provide clear guidance as to the priority which the 'Citizens' Network' project will receive  compared to say the proposal for a Transport TEN; iv)strengthen substantially the sections of the 'Social Dimension', in particular, by setting out  clear objectives for improving the quality of life in the transport sector and identifying ways and  means of raising social productivity throughout the sector. Finally, and of considerable  importance, the issue of working time deserves a great deal more than the single sentence in the  Action Programme. Done at Brussels, 22  November 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C  225, 30. 8. 1995, p. 50.  () OJ No C 397, 31. 12. 1994, p. 23.