Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, harbour installation, maritime transport, trans-European network, transport network

C 214/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

3.11.
The involvement of democratically chosen
bodies is important to the creation and acceptance of a
single internal market. For this reason, and bearing in

mind the comments made in point 3.1, the proposal for
a directive is preferable to the JAA procedure. The
Commission has satisfied this concern.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports
and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III’

(98/C 214/11)

On 24 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 129 D of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the
above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1998. The rapporteur was
Mr Whitworth.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 117 votes in favour, with 8 abstentions.

1.

Introduction and background

The trans-European networks (TEN) derive from

1.1.
Article 129b of the Treaty.

1.2.
Article 129c requires the establishment of a series
of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and
broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of TEN
as well as the identification of projects of common
interest.

Decision No 1692/96/EC (1) established such
1.3.
guidelines for the development of the TEN. The charac-
teristics of the networks in the various transport modes
were identified in Articles 9 to 17 of the decision. The
specific network schemes proposed for the road, rail,
inland waterway, airports and combined transport
networks were illustrated by a series of maps contained
in Annex I to the decision. Annex II contained Criteria
and Specifications for Projects of Common Interest
while Annex III listed the fourteen projects adopted by
the European Council at its meeting in Essen in December
1994.

The characteristics for the development of sea-
1.4.
ports were dealt with only briefly in the decision and no
specific network scheme for them was contained in
Annex I. In a statement attached to the decision the
Commission announced its intention to submit in 1997,
after consulting the interested parties and the Member
States concerned, a proposal for port projects using an
approach similar to that followed for airports.

Extensive consultation has taken place and the
1.5.
Commission has acquired a considerable amount of
relevant data from the four main maritime regions. In
its current proposal it seeks to amend the 1996 Decision
to incorporate its criteria and specifications for seaport
projects and at the same time to amend the decision’s
proposals in respect of inland ports and intermodal
terminals.

2. The Commission’s proposals

2.1. General

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

the
2.1.1.
position of seaports, as well as that of inland ports and

The Commission has concluded that

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/41

intermodal terminals, needs to be specified more clearly
in the guidelines in order to help achieve the multimodal
objectives of the TEN. It perceives the TEN as a
multimodal infrastructure network which should pro-
gressively combine and integrate the different transport
modes and national network and affirms that seaports,
inland ports and transhipment facilities are prerequisite
to the functioning of intermodal transport within such
a network. It notes that the 1996 decision did not include
specific criteria for the development and location of the
main transport modes or interconnection points in the
TEN.

2.1.2.
The Commission seeks to rectify these omis-
sions in its proposals to amend the 1996 decision but
limits its amendments at this stage to the integration of
seaports, inland ports and inland connection points in
intermodal freight transport.

The Commission’s document

lists specific
2.1.3.
amendments to the 1996 decision but it is impossible to
ascertain the precise nature of their proposals without
relating these to the original text. Accordingly the
following paragraphs attempt to summarize the current
proposals in a logical order sector by sector.

2.2. Seaports

2.2.1.
The proposed replacement of Article 12 of the
1996 decision (Article 1(3) of the proposal) states that
seaports in the TEN shall include the approximately
300 ports which are open to all commercial traffic and
which are identified in the new outline plans contained
in the revised Annex I. It stipulates that such seaports
shall have:

— a total annual traffic volume of not less than one

million tonnes freight, or

— not less than 200 000 international passengers (with
a derogation in the case of islands in the Aegean and
Ionian Seas), or

— provide connections between the land links of the

TEN.

It also stipulates that seaport and seaport-related projects
of common interest shall comply with the criteria and
specifications in Annex II.

The main change to the criteria and specifi-
2.2.2.
cations of common interest for seaports contained in
Section 5 of Annex II is the addition of a clause providing
that special attention should be paid to projects for:

— the development of short sea and sea-river shipping;

— upgrading port infrastructure particularly on islands

and in peripheral regions;

— improving hinterland access particularly through

rail and inland waterway;

— development of management and information sys-

tems.

2.2.3.
There is a specific provision that investment in
port infrastructure is not eligible for TEN financial
aid except where it falls within the criteria for the
development of combined transport. The Commission
states that this is due to the strong competition between
ports.

2.3.

Inland ports

2.3.1.
The proposed amendment to Article 11 of the
1996 Decision (Article 1(2) (b) of the proposal) stipulates
that inland ports in the TEN shall be:

— open to all commercial traffic;

— identified in the plan in Annex I;

— interconnected with other transport routes per

Annex I;

— equipped with transhipment

installations

for

intermodal transport.

2.3.2.
There is an amended plan of Inland Waterways
and Inland Ports (7.2) in Annex I which identifies 35
specific inland ports.

2.3.3.
Accordingly the criteria for inland ports con-
tained in paragraph A of Section 4 of Annex II is deleted
although the categories of infrastructure projects have
been retained.

2.4. Combined transport

2.4.1.
The proposed amendments to Article 14 of the
1996 Decision (Article 1(4) of the proposal) redefine
terminals for intermodal transhipment (deleting the
reference to transhipment involving shipping routes)
and specify that such terminals shall be:

— open to all commercial traffic;

— located on or linked to a rail corridor as per Annex I;

— equipped with transhipment

installations

for

intermodal transport.

They are also required to comply with the criteria and
specifications in Section 7 of Annex II, in the third
indent of which (calling for the adaptation of port areas
to develop or improve transfers in combined transport)
the reference to road transport has been deleted.

C 214/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

2.4.2.
The two plans 7.1.A and 7.1.B in Annex I
identifying railway corridors for combined transport
are replaced by four new plans 7.1.0 to 7.1.4 showing
some 210 intermodal terminals. The Commission notes
that, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, the
outline plans do not pinpoint exact terminal sites but
identify terminal transhipment areas.

2.5. Rail networks

Article 10(4) which specifies the characteristics
2.5.1.
of the rail network and Section 3 of Annex II are
amended to include references to the development of
new railway services in particular on the basis of
Trans-European Freight Freeways.

2.6. Projects adopted by the European Council

2.6.1.
In the list contained in Annex III the Multi-
modal Link Portugal/Spain with the rest of Europe has
been substituted for the Motorway Lisbon-Valladolid
in keeping with the decision of the European Council at
Dublin in December 1996.

3. Previous Committee opinions

3.1.
The Committee adopted an Opinion in Novem-
ber 1994 on the Proposal for the Decision on the
trans-European network which finally became Decision
1692/96/EC (1). While this opinion was of necessity
wide-ranging its section dealing with ports made a
number of specific points as follows:

— ports and maritime transport are a key consideration

for the development of the TEN;

— ports development projects should go hand in hand

with the TEN links planned for other modes;

— proposals for the development of short sea shipping

were eagerly awaited;

— plans must not lead to distortions of competition

between individual ports;

— inland ports will play a major role in any intermodal

master plan.

transport modes. It also welcomed the Commission’s
proposals for improving port infrastructure and port
efficiency and in particular advocated the upgrading the
role of small and medium-sized ports.

3.3.
In a series of opinions [the latest being that
adopted in October 1997 on the Communication from
the Commission entitled Intermodality and intermodal
freight transport in the European Union (3)] the Com-
mittee has attached great importance to the improvement
and extension of intermodal transport and has recog-
nized the importance of ports in any intermodal network.

3.4.
In its Opinion on Trans-European Rail Freight
Freeways adopted in January 1998 the Committee
welcomed the Commission’s proposals and saw the
creation of the freeways as an important step towards
revitalizing the European railways.

4. General Comments

4.1.
As already noted it is particularly difficult to
assess the overall effect of the Commission’s proposals
in the form in which they are presented. The Committee
the document should reproduce the
believes that
amended Decision in its entirety with the proposed
changes indicated by typestyle or underlining.

4.2.
The Committee generally welcomes the Com-
mission’s recognition of the important part which ports
must play in the European transport network and the
vital necessity for them to have effective links with other
transport modes. Consistent with its previous opinions
the Committee also welcomes the Commission’s empha-
sis on the development of intermodal facilities and its
identification of critical corridors and connecting points.

4.3.
The Commission approach is essentially a frag-
mented one, dealing as it does with each mode separately
and in specific terms. The Committee perceives the
necessity for the development of an overall strategy
relating the proposals in the various modes to the
purpose and objectives of the TEN as set out in Articles 1
and 2 of the 1996 decision. Without such a strategy a
conclusive evaluation of the TEN will not be possible.

3.2.
In its Opinion on The development of short sea
shipping in Europe (2) adopted in January 1996 the
integration of short sea
Committee urged the full
shipping in the TEN as an equal partner with other

4.4.
Although there are references to coastal and
short sea shipping in Article 12 and the amended
Section 5 of Annex II there is insufficient recognition of
the contribution which the development of these modes

(1) OJ C 397, 31.12.1994, p. 23.
(2) OJ C 97, 1.4.1996, p. 15.

(3) OJ C 19, 31.1.1998, p. 25.

10.7.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 214/43

can make to the concept of sustainable mobility and the
Committee believes that the proposals are an inadequate
response to the thrust of its Opinion on the development
of Short Sea Shipping in Europe.

pete for traffic to and from a common hinterland,
the port transport industry is particularly sensitive to
competition between ports.

4.5.
The Committee is unhappy with what appears
to be the almost total elimination of road transport from
the development of seaports and combined transport in
the context of the TEN network. While fully supporting
the development of intermodal transport as an essential
factor in the maintenance of sustainable mobility it
suggests that the Commission cannot ignore the fact
that a very substantial proportion of the goods passing
through Community ports is currently carried by road
and that road transport projects must have some part
to play in the integration of ports and terminals in the
TEN.

5. Specific comments

5.1. Seaports

5.1.1.
The Committee believes that the thresholds in
terms of freight tonnage or international passenger
traffic specified in new Article 12.2 should be applied
with some flexibility consistent with other criteria being
met. There is a danger that if the thresholds are
applied too rigidly smaller ports with a real potential
contribution to the development of coastal and short
sea shipping may not qualify for development. Further,
in regard to sub paragraph b) there are other areas where
domestic traffic between islands or to the mainland is
significant.

The provision in new paragraph 4 of Section 5
5.1.2.
of Annex II, which states that infrastructure investment
within the port area is not eligible for Community
financial aid in the field of TEN except for projects of
common interest concerning combined transport in port
areas as defined in Annex II Section 7, gives rise to a
number of concerns.

It would appear from this provision that
5.1.3.
involving combined
infrastructure development not
transport may be eligible if they are located just outside
a port area but not within it; this may give rise to
anomalies and the artificial locating of projects in order
to maximize eligibility for financial aid. Further, the
absence of any definition of infrastructure may give rise
to ambiguities.

5.1.4.
There could well be scope for the varied and
inconsistent application of the criteria for ports and port
related projects of common interest as defined in
Annex II Section 5. This could lead to significant
competitive advantage/disadvantage between ports
selected for such projects and those not. As the Com-
mission recognizes, because there are many instances
where ports (funded individually not nationally) com-

5.1.5.
Some port interests feel that on this account
Community financial aid might more equitably be
directed towards feasibility studies for port develop-
ments. On the other hand, it is in the general interest of
the furtherance of the TEN objectives that the financing
of port development projects of major and significant
proportions should not be inhibited by rigid bureaucratic
rules. The Committee suggests that the Commission
should give further thought to this difficult aspect and
to the practical effects in particular instances of the
adoption of its present proposal.

5.2. Combined Transport

The proposed amendment to the second indent
5.2.1.
of paragraph 1 of Article 14 eliminates the existing
reference to shipping routes in the context of terminals
which provide installations for intermodal transhipment
between various modes. The Committee queries this
omission and consistent with its general comment in
paragraph 4.4 above believes that coastal and short
sea shipping should be specifically highlighted in the
characteristics of the TEN combined transport network.

5.2.2.
In Annex II Section 7 it is suggested that the
criteria for projects of common interest should qualify
the list of projects in Annex I rather than be additional
to it.

5.2.3.
In these criteria there is a specific reference in
the 2nd indent to the setting-up of fixed or mobile
transhipment equipment. There should be a similar
reference in Annex II Section 5.3 if maritime transport
is not to be at a disadvantage in this respect.

In the 3rd indent dealing with the adaptation
5.2.4.
of port areas to develop or improve transfers between
sea transport and other modes in combined transport
the reference to road transport has been eliminated.
The Committee affirms that the development of the
intermodal concept cannot be achieved without a
balanced degree of participation of road transport.
There are many instances where a project in a port area
to improve transfers between sea and road might be
appropriate — for example the development of road
access to a port installation circumventing a city centre.
The Committee therefore queries this omission.

5.3. Rail networks

5.3.1.
The Committee approves the amendment of
Article 10(4) and Section 3 of Annex II to include
references to the development of new railway services

C 214/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

in particular on the basis of Trans-European Freight
Freeways.

6. Conclusion

5.4. Projects adopted by the European Council

The Committee notes that in the list contained
5.4.1.
in Annex III the Multimodal Link Portugal/Spain has
been substituted for the Motorway Lisbon-Valladolid
in keeping with the decision of the European Council at
Dublin in December 1996 and favours the development
of a multimodal link.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The Committee would welcome the presentation
6.1.
in the near future of an overview of the entire trans-
European transport network.

6.2.
This should be followed by an assessment based
on setting targets in particular for intermodal net-
working. The Economic and Social Committee would
also like to be consulted on this matter as well as on the
reports which the Commission is required by Articles
18 and 21 to make on the implementation and revision
of the Guidelines.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
adopting a multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector (1998-2002)
and connected measures’

(98/C 214/12)

On 4 February 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 April 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr von der Decken.

At its 354th plenary session of 29 and 30 April 1998 (meeting of 29 April 1998) the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 115 votes in favour and three
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The proposal for a Council Decision contains an

1.1.
explanatory memorandum and seven annexes.

— Annex I contains the proposal for a Decision;

— Annex II deals with the financial aspects of the first
area of action, comprising the horizontal measure,
prospective analysis and market monitoring;

— Annex III deals with the financial aspects of the
second area of action, the horizontal measure cur-
rently carried out under the Synergy programme,
promoting international cooperation in the energy
sector;

— Annex IV outlines the thematic programme, pro-
motion of renewable energy sources and its financial
aspects. This thematic programme was formerly
part of Altener II;

— Annex V comprises the action area, energy efficiency
and reduction of CO2 emissions, and its financial
aspects. This thematic programme was formerly
part of SAVE II;

— Annex VI deals with the Carnot programme;

— Annex VII outlines the financial aspects of cooper-
ation with the New Independent States, e.g. with
regard to the transport of radioactive materials
and the fight against illicit trafficking in nuclear
materials.

The aim of the energy framework programme is
1.2.
to ensure the coherence and efficiency of energy policy