Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Connecting the Union's transport infrastructure network to its neighbours - towards a cooperative pan-European transport network policy'
Date: 1998-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European cooperation, common transport policy, research and development, trans-European network, transport infrastructure

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/75

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament: Connecting the Union’s transport infrastructure
network to its neighbours — towards a cooperative pan-European transport network policy’

(98/C 129/19)

On 30 April 1997 the European Commission consulted the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the EC Treaty, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, charged by the Committee with the
preparation of its work on the matter, adopted its opinion on 16 December 1997 (rapporteur:
Mr Konz).

The Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 352nd plenary session
(meeting of 26 February 1998).

1.

Introduction

The Commission communication,

1.1.
issued on
23 April 1997, was designed to provide the Pan-European
Transport Conference, held in Helsinki on 23 to 25 June
1997, with a working document setting out strategies
and options. It is of the utmost importance, particularly
to would-be members of the European Union, to define
a pan-European approach to transport networks with
a view to linking EU and neighbouring transport
infrastructure.

1.2.
The Commission communication calls for the
creation, in order to meet the needs of the 21st century,
of a continent-wide transport network covering the
countries of central and eastern Europe (CEEC), the
European countries of the former Soviet Union and the
EU’s Mediterranean partners. With this in mind, the
Commission has drawn up a five-point action plan:

— detailing pan-European corridors and transport
areas as a framework for ensuring efficient transport
services with all EU neighbours, including those in
the Mediterranean basin;

— the extension of the trans-European transport net-
works (TEN-Tr) to the applicant countries as part
of the pre-accession process:

— a common European approach to transport tech-
nology throughout the pan-European network;

— the encouragement of intelligent transport tech-
nologies (e.g. the application of computer tech-
nology, automatic signalling) throughout the net-
work;

— closer cooperation on research and technology.

1.3.
The establishment of a pan-European network
partnership bringing together all the relevant parties:
the European Union, Member States, other countries
concerned, international financial institutions, and the
private sector is the best way of enacting the comprehen-
sive approach to the pan-European network proposed
by the Commission.

The partnership should also focus on financial,

1.4.
institutional and legislative matters.

2. General comments

The early issue of the Commission’s communi-
2.1.
cation has of course meant that it was unable to take
account of the outcome of the Helsinki conference. As
a result, the contents of various background reports and
opinions, together with the final declaration issued at
the close of the Helsinki Conference could not be
reflected.

2.2.
The Committee nonetheless expressly welcomes
the Commission’s communication on development of a
cooperative pan-European transport network policy
designed to link the EU’s transport infrastructure net-
work to neighbouring states. The Committee cannot,
however, fail to notice the fact that there is a considerable
divergence between the actual situation and the goals
set out, particularly as regards project-funding. The
broadening of the approach based solely on the establish-
ment of corridors to embrace the establishment of
pan-European transport areas, does, in particular, rep-
resent a qualitative leap, in the Committee’s view.

2.3.
The strategy of adopting an overall approach,
taking account of the need to create mobility which is
both sustainable and environmentally-compatible bears
out the Committee’s long-held standpoint.

A socio-economic assessment and a strategic environ-
mental
impact assessment must underlie any pan-
European network policy. These two processes should
therefore be included in the five-point action plan.

2.4.
The Commission bases its views on the results
of the pan-European transport conferences held in Crete
(14 to 16 March 1994: agreement on corridors) and on
the objectives and principles to be adopted at the

C 129/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

impending Helsinki Conference (23 to 25 June 1997:
updated corridors).

2.5.
As one of the promoters of the pan-European
transport conferences — the value of which it would
continue to underline — the Committee points out that
the various final declarations made at the conferences
and the attendant objectives and principles do not
constitute a binding political framework.

The Commission does, however, refer frequently to
the outcome of these broad consultations involving
governments, parliaments, EU institutions, international
organizations and bodies and socio-economic interest
groups. The results of the consultations should therefore
provide a sound foundation for a common European
approach. Viewed in this light the outcome of these
conferences could thus be construed as an individual
political commitment by the respective signatories.

2.6.
The Committee’s comments therefore cover not
only the Commission communication under review,
but also the statistics submitted by the Commission
(Transport DG) to the pan-European transport confer-
ence in Helsinki. These figures provide a precise defi-
nition of the various corridors, objectives, timeframes for
concluding the infrastructure improvements (between
2010 and 2015) and estimates of costs (the total cost is
put at up to ECU 70 billion).

2.7. However welcome the ambitious nature of the
individual projects may be, those holding positions of
political responsibility should, in the Communities view,
always bear in mind that a great deal of time will be
required between the planning and implementing stages
of the transport networks and that funding is very
frequently the biggest problem in this context.

The Commission estimates that
it will cost ECU
400 billion to implement all the projects of interest to
the EU.

Even if EU funding is provided for this purpose in the
EU’s multi-year indicative programmes, these sums
cover only a modest proportion of the enormous costs
of building new transport infrastructures. Substantial
amounts will therefore need to be found each year from
the public purse and, where appropriate, from private
sources in the EU and relevant neighbouring states to
fund the transport network projects. These states should
introduce special headings in their budgets for this
purpose. Account should also be taken of the rapid
growth in private transport in the CEEC which is causing
a further increase in the number of cars on the roads of
EU Member States.

The ESC feels that stepping up the pace of re-equipment
of the rail network in the CEEC (cf. the Federal German
Railway Company (DB) in the new German Länder)
could provide a cheap and, above all, a quicker solution
to the problem of improving transport capacity, safety
and speed in these states.

2.8.
The process of economic and political reform in
the CEEC is in full swing. By virtue of the respective
Europe Agreements the countries seeking to join the EU

have already made considerable progress in narrowing
the gap between themselves and the EU norm. In this
context the ESC considers that more rapid progress will
have to be made by these states incorporating the
‘acquis communautaire’ in the areas addressed by the
Commission (particularly the socio-economic field and
the environment).

As the targeted infrastructure improvements are to be
completed between 2010 and 2015, the EU standards
should be complied with much earlier, given the work
which has to be started beforehand.

2.9.
The Committee has always clearly stated that a
pan-European transport policy can only ever be success-
ful if it succeeds in setting in train the necessary structural
change — particularly in the CEECs — with the
participation of the social partners and if it succeeds in
carrying out this operation against a background of
stability.

This key demand of the ESC was incorporated in the
Helsinki Declaration through the inclusion of ‘consul-
tation with the socio-economic groups’ as one of the
ten basic principles underlying future cooperation in
transport policy at pan-European level.

The ‘network partnership’ approach may be regarded as
providing a good basis for putting the above-mentioned
principle into practice. This demand is also raised in the
Commission’s communication but insufficient account
is taken of it by the Commission.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Pan-European corridors and transport areas

3.1.1.
As the political action framework transcends
the borders of the EU, the Commission rightly highlights
the need for cooperation with the UN Economic Com-
mission for Europe (UN-ECE) and the European Confer-
ence of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). The regional
working groups operating within the framework of the
G-24 group are also important, particularly in the area
of international financial institutions.

3.1.2.
The Committee takes the view that the pro-
visions set out in the Commission’s communication
stipulating that all construction projects have to be
economically viable and provide a minimum economic
return of 10 % are out of step with Decision 1692/96/EC
of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July
1996 on common guidelines for the development of a
trans-European transport network (TEN-Tr).

The abovementioned decision lays down, in particular,
socially acceptable, safety-orientated conditions. It fur-
ther specifies that projects must make a contribution
towards strengthening economic and social cohesion,
but, regrettably, labour market objectives are wholly
disregarded in this context.

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/77

If a legally binding instrument comes into force at
pan-European level, the abovementioned EU objectives
would also have to be applied at this level. Special
attention should be paid in this respect to islands and
remote areas.

3.1.3.
The Committee thus also supports the Com-
mission’s efforts to promote shipping in the Mediterrane-
an area and to seek to establish, in the long term, an
overall approach to planning an effective transport
infrastructure in the Mediterranean area and the states
bordering on the Mediterranean.

3.1.4.
The principle of subsidiarity is to be applied
here and steps should be taken to ensure that the
members of the public concerned are informed and
consulted in respect of the assessment of transport
networks. In this context, the Committee would once
again highlight the importance of consulting the socio-
economic interest groups, who should be involved from
the discussion and planning stages.

3.1.5.
The Commission’s communication fails to
provide a clear definition of the ‘multimodal’ criterion.
Does this term imply that parallel infrastructures should
be constructed for the various modes of transport? Or
are we simply dealing here with transfers from one mode
of transport to another, using suitable platforms.

Transport infrastructures are designed to last many
years and are very expensive. They also leave a lasting
scar on the natural environment and are becoming
increasingly unacceptable to the general public. It is
absolutely essential to avoid duplicate investment in
parallel infrastructures. The Committee is therefore in
favour of a more intermodal approach and more
intermodal freight transport (1).

3.2. Extending the TEN approach (2)

3.2.1.
The Committee welcomes the approach advo-
cated by the Commission. Once again, however, as
was the case with the EU’s trans-European transport
network, the key question is: how is it to be funded?
The TEN approach can barely be funded within the EU
countries and there are much greater shortfalls in
funding in the applicant states.

This fact has also been recognized by the Commission,
which on 10 September 1997 issued a Communication on
public-private partnerships in trans-European transport

(1) See the ESC Opinion of 29 October 1997 on the Communi-
cation from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Intermodality and
intermodal freight transport in the European Union: a
systems approach to freight transport — strategies and
actions to enhance efficiency, services and sustainability’
(COM(97) 243 final) (OJ C 19, 31.1.1998, p. 1).

(2) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for
the development of the trans-European transport network
(OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1). ESC Opinion: OJ C 397,
31.12.1994, p. 23.

network projects (3); the Committee endorsed the com-
munication in an opinion adopted on 25 February 1998.

3.2.2.
The networks to and via non-EU countries,
together with the interconnection points between the
different modes of transport are of reciprocal interest
and should be given priority. The applicant states should
enjoy a special position in this respect. There is no doubt
that the inclusion of these states in TEN-Tr planning
will complicate overall planning at EU level and the
issue of funding.

Given the variety of planning processes involved (corri-
dors, areas, and Transport Infrastructure Needs Assess-
ment (TINA) and TEN), the ESC calls for much closer
coordination of project planning and implementation.

The Committee also urges that the selected infrastructure
projects benefit from more generous joint financing
through the provision of EU grants, subject to the
maximum harmonization of technical and construction
standards.

3.3. European approach to transport technology

Interoperability between networks needs to be
3.3.1.
guaranteed in the interests of enabling optimal use (from
an economic point of view and in the context of
environmental compatibility) to be made of European
transport networks. Only if such a proviso is met
will all types of transport — both passenger and
goods-transport,
including intermodal goods trans-
port — be able to make full and unfettered use, without
delay, of existing and planned infrastructure.

Interoperability involves both technical aspects (stan-
dardization measures) and legislative and regulatory
aspects. These two side of the coin as far as interoperabi-
lity is concerned must be interlinked and coordinated.

3.3.2.
Interoperability between networks is a ‘sine
qua non’ if the various transport undertakings, are to
provide different services in the safest form, offering
the best value for money; interoperability and free,
non-discriminatory access to all transport infrastructure
are therefore the top priorities for the guidelines for
trans-European transport networks.

3.4. The intelligent use of
transport research

transport networks —

3.4.1.
As, in particular, the intermodal linking of
telematics systems at pan-European level (4) is still
inadequately developed, the ESC urges the Commission

(3) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions on public-private
partnerships in trans-European transport network projects
(COM(97) 453 final).

(4) See the ESC’s own-initiative opinion on the use of telematics
systems in intermodal transport at pan-European level (OJ
C 66, 3.3.1997, p. 27).

C 129/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

to pay greater attention to this aspect in the action plan
attached to the communication (see point 1.2 above).

Steps should also be taken to ensure that the relevant
safety standards are met.

Telematics technology could help to achieve more
rational transport flows and their practical implemen-
tation whilst taking account of a) the human factor as
such and b) personnel implications.

3.4.2.
Clearly the existing approaches should be used
and further promoted. There are doubts, however, as to
whether simply transferring the technologies used in the
EU states to neighbouring states, or marketing the
technology in those countries is the right approach.

If difficulties arise in applying these technologies in the
neighbouring states, an appraisal should first be made
of the extent to which the use of such technologies is
desirable.

3.4.3.
The report drawn up by DG VII — Transport
for the pan-European transport conference in Helsinki,
on the intelligent use of transport systems is a step in
the right direction in this respect (SEC(97) 1227 —
cf. point 2.2 on transport research and technological
development — RTD). The DG VII report considers
how the quality of European transport services, including
intermodal services, can be improved.

3.5. Development of a Europe-wide transport net-

works partnership

3.5.1.
Since a number of parliaments, governments,
institutions and private undertakings are interested in
the projects, it is particularly important to establish a
regulatory and administrative framework.

Lately the emphasis is being placed more and more on
on-the-spot coordination, all possible steps should thus
be taken to involve regional authorities, together with the
socio-economic groups concerned, in the partnership, in
addition to the relevant national authorities.

The Committee would therefore once again highlight
the importance of developing consultative machinery to
permit dialogue with the social partners.

3.5.2.
As regards the application in the regions and
states concerned of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of
14 June 1993 on the coordination of procedures for
awarding contracts, the Committee takes the view that
an appropriate regulatory framework will have to be
established for these states. This is the only way to
prevent EU undertakings, with their greater expertise,
from being the only firms considered for major contracts.

Brussels, 26 February 1998.

4. Final observations

4.1. Structured dialogue in the context of a cooperative

pan-European transport network policy

In the own-initiative opinion (1) which it issued
4.1.1.
prior to the Helsinki Conference, the ESC considered in
detail the possible form of consultative machinery as
part of a cooperative pan-European transport network
policy. Fixed structures are not the decisive factor when
it comes to the establishment of machinery for dialogue
between the socio-economic groups concerned. Different
forms of consultation, including procedures which are
of limited duration or cover specific issues, could be
introduced, provided that they are sufficiently binding.

4.1.2.
Steering committees have been used as a means
of implementing a pan-European transport network
policy in respect of the various corridors or as a means
of formulating the associated area concepts. Only
representatives of governments and administrations
serve on these committees.

Why are the socio-economic groups not involved? Would
it not be beneficial to make use of the expertise of the
relevant transport enterprises, transport trade union
members and transport users in this respect?

The ESC takes the view that supplementary advisory
bodies would be the appropriate vehicle for such
consultations. This would provide a way of discussing
the issues in still greater depth and opening up the debate
from the government level to include the socio-economic
groups.

4.2. Formation of political will and directing it more

effectively

4.2.1.
The ESC takes the view that the communication
under review represents an initial attempt on the part of
the Commission to address the various aspects involved
and to consult all interested parties. The ESC once again
congratulates the Commission on this initiative.

If we are, however, to carry further and
4.2.2.
coordinate more effectively the formation of a political
will, the Commission should issue an improved com-
munication which should,
include a
stocktaking of the Helsinki Conference and build on the
findings of the various working parties and the plenary
assembly of this conference.

in particular,

(1) ESC Own-initiative Opinion on the Pan-European trans-
port conference and the social dialogue — from Crete to
Helsinki (OJ C 206, 15.7.1996, p. 96).

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS