Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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: 1998-09-17
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common transport policy, harbour installation, inland waterway transport, maritime transport, trans-European network

C 373/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.12.98

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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’

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(98/C 373/03)

having regard to 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 [COM(97) 681 final — 97/0358 (COD)] (1);

having regard to the Decision of the Council of 24 March 1998 to consult the Committee of
the Regions, under Article 129d and the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty
establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 13 May 1998
to instruct Commission 3 for Trans-European Networks, Transport, Information Society to
draw up the Committee’s opinion on the subject;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 101/98 rev.) adopted by Commission 3 on 18 May
1998 (rapporteur: Mr Johan Sauwens),

at its 25th plenary session of 16 and 17 September 1998 (meeting of 17 September) unanimously
adopted the following opinion.

1. Content of the Commission document

1.1.
Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guide-
lines for the development of the trans-European trans-
port network (TEN) provides a broad framework
for the establishment of an integrated, multimodal
network (2).

1.7.
The TEN is intended as a multimodal infrastruc-
ture network which should progressively combine and
integrate the different transport modes and national
networks.

The aim of the proposal for an amendment
1.2.
referred to the Commission is to clarify and reinforce
the position of seaports, inland ports and intermodal
terminals in the trans-European network.

This is based on the assumption that the inte-
1.8.
gration of different modes and national networks should
result in an overall increase in efficiency, which in turn
should reduce congestion and pollution effects.

1.3.
These interconnection points are a precondition
for interchange between different transport modes. The
development of intermodal transport should contribute
to a more efficient use of the entire network in both
operational and environmental terms.

1.4.
The European Commission’s evaluation of sea-
ports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in the TEN
involved an extensive consultation of Member States
and of other parties concerned.

1.5.
In general, the Member States and the other
parties involved endorsed the initiative to more effec-
tively integrate seaports, inland ports and intermodal
terminals in the multimodal TEN.

1.6.
Differences emerged mainly over the details of
the proposal, such as the number and location of
interconnection points, as well as the criteria for projects
of common interest.

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

1.9.
The combination of different transport modes is
essential if the expected growth in transport activities
over the next years is to rely to a significant degree on
less congested and less environmentally harmful modes.

1.10.
At the same time, the integration of hitherto
unconnected networks should increase regional accessi-
bility within the Community with positive effects on
trade and productivity.

1.11.
As a multimodal network, the TEN consists of
links and nodes. However, in view of the aim of the
TEN to combine and integrate different transport
modes, the guidelines may be regarded as insufficient
without specific criteria and outline plans for the
development of the principal interconnection points.

2.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 373/21

1.12.
In particular, seaports, inland ports and tran-
shipment facilities in combined transport are prerequisite
to the functioning of intermodal transport within a
multimodal infrastructure network.

2.6.
The right of European citizens to mobility should
be specifically mentioned in view of its social importance;
this applies in particular to residents of peripheral areas
of Europe. Moreover, the importance of ports in relation
to tourism can hardly be overestimated.

1.13.
regarded as incomplete.

In its present form, the TEN must therefore be

1.14.
The identification of seaports in the TEN is
an important step towards establishing a multimodal
infrastructure network. Historically, seaports have often
been the starting points for the creation of mainland
transport links. Today, seaports play a key role in
the design and establishment of hinterland transport
systems.

1.15. Moreover, since seaports and inland intercon-
nection points are interdependent and equally important
elements in the development of intermodal transport,
the European Commission decided to include inland
interconnection points in the proposal.

To sum up, the current European Commission
1.16.
proposal can be regarded as a refinement of Decision
No 1692/96/EC on a Trans-European Transport Net-
work, which adds both limiting and broadening criteria
for the selection of seaports, inland ports and intermodal
terminals.

2. Opinion: general comments

2.1.
The Committee of the Regions supports the
European Commission’s efforts to define more clearly
the role of seaports and inland ports in combined
transport at European level.

2.2.
The Committee refers to its earlier opinions, in
which it argued that water and combined transport
should be assigned a more central role in European
transport policy.

This should be done within an integrated overall
2.3.
approach to transport policy, with account being taken
at the earliest stages of decision-making of spatial
planning considerations.

2.4. Other important requirements are greater con-
sideration of the real costs of transport, and a policy for
the harmonization of conditions of competition.

2.5.
The Committee of the Regions rather regrets
that the current proposal for a decision is concerned
almost exclusively with goods transport, although ports
are an important part of the TEN in relation to passenger
transport too.

The Committee regrets that the opportunity has
2.7.
not been taken to refine and clarify the criteria and
specifications for inland waterway projects of common
interest.

2.8.
The Committee also fails to understand exactly
why many inland ports, whose activity can make a
substantial contribution to strengthening the use of the
European inland waterway network, have not been
included in the maps in Appendix I. The Committee is
keen for this inland port network to be substantially
strengthened.

2.9.
The European inland waterway network must
be optimized in the framework of the TEN, and the
scale and capacity of a number of cross-border links
must be brought up to a sufficient standard. Only then
can inland ports play their role to the full.

2.10. With regard to coordination, the Committee
shares the view that the development of seaports,
inland ports and intermodal terminals is almost entirely
market-led.

2.11.
The Committee of the Regions particularly
welcomes the inclusion of seaports in the Trans-
European Networks (TEN), as a means of ensuring
seaports can act as interconnection points in the inter-
national goods transport system with other interregional
modes of transport provided for under the TEN.

2.12.
Intermodal transport is an important aspect of
a balanced transport policy. The Committee fails to
understand exactly why many combined transport
terminals, whose activity can make a substantial contri-
bution to greater use of intermodal transport, have not
been included in the maps in Appendix I. The Committee
is keen for this intermodal network to be substantially
strengthened.

2.13.
Accordingly, the Committee of the Regions also
endorses the Commission’s efforts to provide funding
for ports as projects of common interest when setting
up the Trans-European transport networks. The con-
sideration given to port projects highlights the import-
ance of the seaport as a logistical centre and junction in
the European transport system. The assessment and
selection of the port projects must, however, be done
critically.

The COR welcomes the fact that there are no
2.14.
proposals to draw up a classification of seaports along

C 373/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.12.98

the lines of that provided for in the guidelines for
airports, and that the selection of specific ports as
‘seaports of European interest’ is not planned.

2.15.
The COR agrees that TEN budget appropri-
ations should in principle not be used to promote
projects in port areas, in order to avoid distortions of
competition. The promotion of superstructure projects
is thus clearly excluded. The Commission has recognized
that individual projects must be considered in the light
of their impact on competition.

2.16.
The three proposed exceptions to the principle
that investment in infrastructure in port areas is not
eligible for support are, however, to refer not only to
transport management and information systems such as
EDI but also to projects which involve combined
transport. All the projects described under Appendix II,
Section 7 would thus become eligible even when situated
within the port area. This would cause considerable
distortions of competition, as it would mainly involve
superstructure investment for transhipment. This would
be tantamount to back-door abolition of the basic
criterion that in the port area only infrastructure projects
are eligible for support.

2.17. Moreover, the Commission proposals would
make it possible to harness the Structural Funds and
Cohesion Funds for projects in port areas in assisted
regions too, with support for superstructure investment
being possible in exceptional cases. The Commission
would thus be interfering directly in competition between
European seaports. Competition must not, however, be
distorted at the expense of the northern ports, as a result
of a policy to direct or ‘distribute fairly’ traffic flows
between European ports, whether by means of funding
or improved basic conditions. EU measures must not
be used to even out competition between European
seaports. It is unacceptable that public funding for
regional development should compromise the economic
viability of private investment in other areas. If, from
the point of view of regional policy, certain areas are
to be developed, this should be done through the
establishment and promotion of industries appropriate
to the location. The COR is firmly against any deliberate
transfer of existing, well-organized traffic flows.

Brussels, 17 September 1998.

2.18.
There are thus good reasons for Community
involvement, but in close consultation with the regions,
Member States and local authorities, and with full
regard to the principle of subsidiarity.

2.19.
Contrary to the assertions of the proposal for a
decision, efforts have already been made at a number
of policy-making levels to coordinate interconnection
points within the framework of an overall transport or
mobility plan.

2.20.
archy of seaports at European level.

This will doubtless eventually result in a hier-

3. Conclusions

3.1.
The Committee can initially endorse the criteria
for defining seaports, as set out in Appendix 1, and the
resulting list of 300 seaports adopted into the TEN. The
Committee is also sympathetic to the granting of an
exception for islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas.

3.2.
At the current stage of development of European
transport policy, the Committee can also endorse the
criteria for the definition of terminals and inland ports,
as set out in Appendix 1 (map).

3.3.
Inland ports and intermodal terminals have not
been adequately covered in the maps in Appendix I.
Many further places fulfil the criteria. The maps,
therefore, require supplementing.

3.4. With regard to the projects included in Appen-
dix III, the Committee would point out that in all EU
Member States a rapid development is taking place in
priority projects and the definition of these, often on the
initiative of regional and local authorities.

3.5.
It would be better to update Appendix 3 regularly,
after a broad round of consultations with the regions
and local authorities.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER