Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC)'
Date: 1999-06-03
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: committee report, common transport policy, competitiveness, interinstitutional relations (EU), trans-European network, transport network

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/9

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines
and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC)’

(1999/C 293/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network:
1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18
of Decision 1692/96/EC) (COM (1998) 614 final);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 4 November 1998, under the first paragraph
of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the
Regions on the matter;

having regard to its Bureau decision of 13 January 1999 to direct Commission 3 for Trans-European
Networks, Transport and Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Title XII (Trans-European networks)
and Title XIV (Economic and social cohesion) of the Treaty establishing the European Community
(Title III, Article G, of the Union Treaty);

having regard to Decision No. 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July
1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 60/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 3 on 15 April 1999
(rapporteurs: Mr Valca´rcel Siso and Mr Gustâv),

adopted the following opinion at its 29th plenary session of 2 and 3 June 1999 (meeting of 3 June).

1.

Introduction

‘Economic and social cohesion’, as enshrined in
1.1.
for
Article B of
achieving ‘economic and social progress which is balanced and
sustainable’ within the EU.

is a key instrument

the Union Treaty,

To this end, the Treaty establishing the European
1.2.
Community made an explicit distinction between ‘economic
(Article 2) and ‘the strengthening of
and social cohesion’
economic and social cohesion’
(Article 3). The subsequent
handling of these two concepts in the Treaty implies:

•

•

that all ‘Community policies’ must always be conceived
with consideration for their contribution to ‘economic and
social cohesion’;

that the Union also accepts the need to introduce specific
policies aimed at ‘the strengthening of economic and social
cohesion’.

•

•

•

the establishment of an area without internal frontiers,
with free movement of goods, services and capital;

the development of the conditions needed to make Com-
munity industry competitive;

the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, defined
as ‘reducing disparities between the levels of development
of
the
the various regions and the backwardness of
least-favoured regions, including rural areas’ (to which the
Amsterdam Treaty has added ‘least-favoured islands’).

1.4.
Pursuant to the objectives and specific tasks enshrined
in EC Treaty Articles 129c and 129d, and following the
co-decision procedure, on 23 July 1996 the European Parlia-
ment and the Council approved Decision 1692/96/EC on
Community guidelines for the development of the trans-
European transport network. The decision required the Euro-
pean Commission to:

1.3.
If we analyse Title XII (Trans-European networks) of
the EC Treaty in conjunction with Title XIV (Economic and
social cohesion), we see that TEN (Trans-European Network)
policy is a specific instrument designed to contribute directly
to:

•

report every two years to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the
guidelines described in the decision (Article 18);

C 293/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.1999

•

submit to the European Parliament and the Council, every
five years and for the first time before 1 July 1999, a report
indicating whether the guidelines should be adapted; if
necessary, this would be backed by appropriate proposals
(Article 21).

Lastly, as Article 129d of the EC Treaty requires that
1.5.
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions be consulted prior to the adoption of Community
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport
network (TEN-T), it follows that any adjustments and proposals
under Article 21 of Decision 1692/96/EC must also be submit-
ted to the two committees.

2. Procedure

2.1.
The 1998 report on the implementation of the guide-
lines and priorities for the future of the TEN-T (hereafter
referred to as the ‘1998 report’) states that as well as assessing
the state of play, it also seeks to ‘launch a broad consultation
process leading up to a white paper on revision to the
guidelines in 1999’.

2.2.
Despite the rather general nature of these intentions, it
is clear that the European Commission proposes to launch a
procedure for revising the guidelines. This differs somewhat
from the provisions of Article 21 of the decision, or at least
represents a rather broad interpretation of them.

In the light of the previous point, the Committee
2.3.
considers it vital that the European Commission give precise
details of the stages, content and time-frame of the envisaged
procedure for revising the guidelines.

3. The rationale behind the TEN-T: Competitiveness and

accessibility

3.1.
The 1998 report states that the Community’s TEN-T
policy is founded on two considerations, being based on
Article 129b(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty:

•

•

the vital role of efficient
infrastructure for
competitiveness, growth and employment in the long term
(objectives
of Deci-
sion 1692/96/EC);

of Article 2(2)

transport

(a)

to

(f)

improvement of economic and social cohesion, ensuring
that outlying regions are well connected to EU networks
(h) of Article 2(2) of Deci-
(objectives
sion 1692/96/EC); here the report mentions the role played
by the Cohesion Fund.

and

(g)

Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion
and transport (1).

3.3.
However, the Committee is not convinced that the
actual technical and economic development of Community
TEN-T policy has managed to maintain a sufficient balance
between the pursuit of competitiveness and the pursuit of
cohesion.

3.4. While the imbalance may have arisen for purely
technical reasons, the Committee would nevertheless point
out that policy implementation at present seems tied more to
competitiveness-related criteria (traffic volumes, elimination of
bottlenecks, interoperability, immediate profitability, etc.) than
to those related to economic and social cohesion (e.g. accessi-
bility and long-term socio-economic profitability).

Of course, the Community also contributes to the
3.5.
TEN-T via the Cohesion Fund. Here too, however, aid is subject
to assessment criteria in which competitiveness indicators are
an important factor.

Another instance of

3.6.
the tendency of Community
policies to focus on competitiveness is infrastructure pricing
policy. This is undoubtedly an ad hoc instrument for addressing
the problems of infrastructure capacity and wider economic
competitiveness, but its value is more doubtful when it comes
to addressing cohesion objectives and general shortcomings in
accessibility.

3.7.
In the light of the above considerations, the Committee
thinks that the Community institutions and Member States
should strive to improve the balance of TEN-T policy (planning,
technical side and administration). This means:

• paying more attention to improvement of accessibility

when evaluating projects;

•

remembering that accessibility not only involves access
between the national networks and the TEN-T but also
within the TEN-T.

3.8.
In short, the Committee thinks that TEN-T policy
should add to its basic objectives that of creating a new
‘inter-regional accessibility map’. As the abovementioned
recent communication on cohesion and transport points out,
this map should help to reduce disparities between regions by
laying down minimum accessibility thresholds (calculated
using objective time/cost indicators) for travel to and from all
parts of the EU.

This second aim has recently been addressed in some
3.2.
detail in the European Commission’s communication to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social

(1) COM(1998) 806 final.

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/11

The Committee considers that this is necessary because,
3.9.
although geographical distance is an immutable fact,
it is
unacceptable that outlying regions should face an additional
burden as a result. The Committee stresses the considerable
disadvantage represented by a lower ‘theoretical journey speed’
and higher ‘unit journey costs’, compared with the times and
unit costs enjoyed by the EU’s heartlands and more central
regions.

3.10.
In the medium to long term, the Committee sees
no contradiction or incompatibility between competitiveness
objectives and accessibility objectives because once investment
and employment policies have taken effect, improvements in
accessibility will also improve competitiveness potential. The
Committee considers that a balance has to be struck between
competitiveness and cohesion.

Further to the above points,

3.11.
it should be noted
that the 1998 report shows a somewhat unbalanced modal
breakdown of Community grants in the two-year period
1996-1997:

4. Action over the two years 1996-1997

The introduction to the 1998 report states that the
4.1.
report covers ‘the main trends concerning TEN-T funding’. The
Committee is pleased to see that the report considers it highly
likely that the TEN-T set out in Decision 1692/96/EC will be
completed by the 2010 target-date.

4.2.
This belief is strengthened by the fact that during the
two-year period 1996-1997 a total of MECU 38 400 was
invested in the TEN-T. The estimated total cost of the projects
concerned is MECU 307 000. As the total investment needed
in the TEN-T for the period to 2010 has been estimated at
between MECU 400 000 and 500 000,
it follows that the
projects already under way account for between 60 % and
In noting these figures, the
75 % of the estimated total.
Committee congratulates the relevant Community bodies on
their achievement.

4.3.
Here the Committee stresses the need, when monitor-
ing the progress of the TEN-T, to keep a careful eye on the
respective development of the road, rail and port networks.
Closer coordination is vital in order to:

•

•

the TEN-T budget line allocated 56,9 % of resources to rail
and 20,9 % to traffic management schemes, with only
15,4 % for roads and 6,8 % for other modes;

•

•

the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF together earmarked
55,2 % of resources to roads and 38,8 % to rail, with a
token 0,2 % for traffic management schemes and 5,8 % for
other modes.

The allocation of resources under the TEN-T budget line, the
Cohesion Fund and the ERDF essentially supports only road
and rail. In future, Community grants should earmark more
resources for environment-friendly waterways.

encourage combined transport;

steer Community policy towards a ‘client-based’ approach
and consideration of transport as a ‘door-to-door’ oper-
ation.

The Committee also notes the positive efforts made
4.4.
hitherto, and would stress the need to promote the injection
of private capital in the financing of transport infrastructure.
This is not an easy issue, given the special nature of investment
in this field (lengths of time and risks involved). However, the
Community institutions could make a significant contribution
by systematically gathering together and making available
— to all Member States and socio-economic operators —
experience in the following fields:

The Committee considers that this breakdown of
3.12.
Community grants,
together with certain other network
developments described in the 1998 report, show that the
problems which the TEN-T must address are not exactly the
same throughout the EU.

• project design typologies;

• nature and formulation of the mutual guarantees required

for the success of the PPPs.

3.13.
In the ‘heartland areas’, the key problems are more
related to competitiveness and capacity, and the impact of
external
is very
factors (particularly environmental ones)
important. In the ‘outlying areas’, the problems of accessibility
and cohesion are unavoidable, and the impact of external
factors may be relatively less.

3.14.
The Committee thinks that this must be remembered
when establishing the balance between competitiveness and
accessibility criteria, in order to ensure that Community TEN-T
policies strive to find the best solution for each particular area.

4.5. Without overlooking the other measures, the Com-
mittee stresses the particular importance of what the 1998
report terms ‘horizontal’ measures. In this context:

•

•

efforts to attain interoperability — which must always take
account of the practical economic impact of the problem
— represent an important Community contribution to the
development of the networks;

support for R&D activities has a multiplier effect as it
furthers the development of the networks, facilitates the
generation of additional economies, and creates know-how
which is vital for international competitiveness;

C 293/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.1999

•

•

the development of strategic environmental assessment
methods must extend these assessments to all tiers of the
transport system, by dovetailing the usual project-related
considerations with new ones relating to ‘corridor’ and
‘network’;

connections with third countries are vitally important,
both to reduce the number of initial structural obstacles to
any future enlargements of the EU and to embed the EU
networks more firmly within world transport systems.

4.11.
indicators, for example:

The study also came up with some more significant

•

for passenger transport:

— the volume of population that can be reached from

each area in less than 3 hours of travel;

•

for goods transport:

that

The Committee points out

4.6.
the 1998 report
devotes little attention to interoperability problems and
schemes, despite the fact that the European Commission and
the Member States have made noteworthy headway in this
field. Interoperability is also important enough to be specifi-
cally mentioned in Article 129b(2) of the EC Treaty.

4.7.
The Committee feels that a clarification is needed
regarding the report’s consideration of Community funding of
TEN-T projects in the period 1996-1997. Under the term
‘contributions’, the report brackets together non-repayable
grants (TEN-T budget, ERDF, Cohesion Fund) and fully repay-
able loans (EIB etc.). This could give a rather unbalanced
picture of the role of the Community, and it would be helpful
if the exact nature of the various instruments could be made
clear each time they are mentioned.

The Committee points out that, aside from the question
4.8.
of future guidelines, the 1998 report only gives an analytical
evaluation and description of activities in 1996-1997. It does
not assess or describe the objectives achieved, or the practical
impact of the activities; nor are these issues to be addressed in
the second, more detailed report.

— the volume of population that can be reached from

each area in different periods of time;

— the direct costs of access from each area to a given

volume of population.

4.12.
The Committee considers that the reports on the
implementation of Community guidelines for the development
of the TEN-T (Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC) and the
future report on the case for adjusting the guidelines
(Article 21) should assess the objectives achieved and the
practical impact of Community TEN-T policy.

The types of instrument used by the abovementioned
4.13.
study provide a useful example which could be refined and
developed in the horizontal R&D measures. They:

•

underscore the case for a new inter-regional accessibility
map of the EU (see point 3,8 above) that can be assessed
using objective methods;

• highlight an area in which the Committee feels that the
reports scheduled under Decision 1692/96/EC need to
make considerable headway.

For instance, amongst the work done in this area, the
4.9.
Committee is aware that in 1996 the Commission received a
study on territorial strategies in relation to the TEN-T. The
study, which covered the EU-15 plus Switzerland and Norway,
contained a mathematical simulation of the TEN-T and made
a quantitative assessment of the current situation and the role
which the TEN-T would play in the period up to 2010.

4.14.
Ultimately, the TEN-T guidelines only make sense
insofar as they effectively help to boost the competitiveness of
European industry and the EU’s economic and social cohesion.
It is against these yardsticks that the guidelines must be
rigorously assessed, in order to ascertain whether they need to
be adjusted.

4.10.
indicators for the main TEN-T objectives:

For assessment purposes, the study set a number of

•

contribution to the competitiveness of the EU economy;

•

contribution to EU cohesion;

•

contribution to sustainable mobility.

5. Future action regarding the Community guidelines

(general points)

5.1.
The issues addressed in this chapter of the 1998 report
suggest that there is a need to go right back to the planning
process that preceded Decision 1692/96/EC. Here the Com-
if
mittee is merely pointing out a shortcoming which,
addressed, could solve many of the problems raised in the
report.

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/13

5.2.
The common TEN-T policy, as described in the EU
Treaty, is very vague and does not explain what a TEN-T is or
should be. Hence, in the Committee’s view, it is not possible
to glean from the Treaty:

•

•

that the TEN-T are based on a multimodal approach;

that the constituent parts of the TEN-T can be rigorously
evaluated.

• whether the networks are to cover the whole EU, and
comprise elements of the highest hierarchical and func-
tional level;

• whether the networks are made up of elements whose
functions are of ‘common interest’ (a concept that has to
be precisely defined and assessed for each project);

•

or whether they are simply an effective, coordinated and
compatible means of promoting the development of
transport infrastructure networks in the Member States.

As far as the Committee is aware, no theoretical or
5.3.
operational definitions of the concept of a ‘TEN-T’ were
established in the period from 1992 to 1996 (with the possible
exception of the high-speed rail network and the combined
transport and airport networks, which received more specific
attention). Such definitions are vital in any network planning
process.

The Committee must also point out that, to the best of
5.4.
its knowledge, the planning and procedural stages prior to the
approval of Decision 1692/96/EC also failed to arrive at a
truly multimodal concept of TEN-T.

5.5.
It should be noted here that the European Commission
suggested in its 1994 proposals that a multimodal approach
was guaranteed by the mere fact of having network plans for
all modes of transport. However, the Committee takes the
view that simply juxtaposing single-mode networks that were
designed separately is no way of securing multimodality.
Multimodality requires that each modal network is initially
designed or subsequently revised in conjunction with all the
others, in the light of their complementary aspects and types
of use.

Thirdly, and again to the best of the Committee’s
5.6.
knowledge,
there appears to be no precise definition or
standard method for identifying and evaluating the common
interest of a specific TEN-T project, despite the frequent use of
the term ‘common interest’ (see, in particular, Article 7 of
Decision 1692/96/EC).

5.7.
The Committee considers that in order to remedy the
existing situation, it is now vitally important to address the
issues that were not considered prior to 1996, and to try to
ensure:

•

that the TEN-T correspond more closely to the purpose
assigned them in the Treaty (instruments for both competi-
tiveness and cohesion);

In the Committee’s view, this will mean establishing a
5.8.
precise definition of what a TEN-T is or what it should be. This
definition could be one of the points considered in the wide
debate which the European Commission intends to launch
when it publishes its white paper. The definition should be
precise and detailed enough to:

• provide analytical and quantitative instruments for the
the

revision of
multimodal trans-European transport network (MTN-T)

the guidelines, so as to ensure that

— has sufficient capacity in areas where demand is highly

concentrated;

— is sufficiently accessible for all areas of the EU;

— reduces environmental damage to an acceptable level;

— meets the basic principles of a social costs/benefits

analysis;

discuss objectively the pros and cons of whether a certain
item of infrastructure should form part of the MTN-T;

organize the hierarchy and functionality of the MTN-T and
of all its constituent parts (links, interconnection points
and corridors);

establish a general reference framework for the typological
design of the MTN-T, and for the analysis and evaluation
of action priorities.

•

•

•

5.9.
Lastly, the Committee suggests that one way of address-
ing the abovementioned shortcomings would be for the
immediate planning of ‘horizontal’ R&D measures to include
provision for:

•

•

•

fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a
view to continual assessment of the contribution of the
TEN-T to competitiveness and accessibility, given that the
latter is a basic plank of economic and social cohesion;

fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a
view to continual assessment of the common interest of
the specific elements of the TEN-T (corridors, projects,
etc.);

fleshing out the requisite indicators and technical specifi-
cations, so that they measure the intrinsic quality of TEN-T
infrastructure and of the services provided by it.

C 293/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.1999

6. Future action regarding the Community guidelines

(specific points)

6.1.
In the absence of any practical or operational plan for
the MTN-T, the Committee is at all events obliged to offer
some answers to the problems raised by the European
Commission in the 1998 report. The paragraphs which follow
are designed to provide guidance and fuel the debate which is
being launched. They represent the broad guidelines which the
Committee feels should underpin the MTN-T.

6.7.
The Committee cannot accept the report’s view that a
systematic approach provides an alternative to ‘overlaying’ the
existing dense networks to create a set of priority multimodal
corridors (the third option mooted by the report). On the
contrary, a rigorous, systematic approach is vital for identifying
and selecting these corridors.

6.8.
In order to effectively reset the balance of Europe
and thus achieve a more harmonious configuration of the
Community as a whole, peripheral,
island and landlocked
regions must be better linked to the rest of the EU.

6.2.
The 1998 report mentions the possibility of stepping
up Community activity in the field of traffic management and
navigation systems (Intelligent Transport Systems, or ITS). The
aim is to make optimum use of existing infrastructure and
reduce the emphasis on the building of new infrastructure.

This can be done by focusing on their specific characteristics,
developing their ports and connecting them to long-distance
rail routes. For instance, to strengthen the competitiveness of
maritime transport and to enhance the complementarity of
peripheral ports, these ports should be linked to the TEN-T by
road, rail or other modes, such as inland waterways and
‘feeder’ lines.

The Committee feels that this may not be a valid
6.3.
option in all cases, for the reasons set out in points 3,12 to
3,14 above. Hence, a scheme which is extremely relevant for
some of the ‘heartland areas’ (using ITS systems to make
the most of existing infrastructure) may be premature and
discriminatory for some ‘outlying areas’ which still have
obvious fundamental gaps in some basic transport infrastruc-
ture.

6.4.
The Committee is concerned at the 1998 report’s
suggestion that priority projects could continue to be decided
on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. The report seems to view this as an
alternative to two more systematic procedures. A cursory
reading of the report would therefore suggest that the ‘ad hoc’
procedure is a discretional one, or one that is adjusted on a
case-by-case basis.

If this is so, the Committee is forced to point out that
6.5.
selecting projects on an ‘ad hoc’ (in the sense of discretionary)
basis makes it impossible to plan or implement them with any
rigour. Priorities must be set according to definite rules that
are made public, so that the process is properly transparent,
even if these priorities have to revised when there is a change
in objective conditions or social considerations.

It is mainly over long distances that intermodality provides a
possible alternative to exclusively road-based transport.

6.9.
In short, the Committee thinks that the usual rigorous
network planning procedures must be used to identify and
select these corridors, which should become:

•

•

•

•

the building blocks for establishing an initial scale of
priorities within the very extensive MTN-T;

a channel for selecting priority projects, keeping a balance
between the contribution to competitiveness and the
contribution to accessibility;

a powerful instrument for coordinating the development
of the MTN-T;

the best guarantee of consistency for the MTN-T schemes
in subsequent years.

6.10.
The target date for completion of the networks
covered by Decision 1692/96/EC is 2010. The 1998 report
raises the question of whether this date should be retained in
any revision of the guidelines. The Committee feels that this is
a matter of form rather than substance.

6.6.
Pursuing this line of thought, the Committee points
out that the use of a systematic approach for identifying the
trans-European benefits of individual projects and multimodal
corridors (the second of the three options mooted in the
report) is vital for setting subsequent priorities for the revision
of the guidelines.

6.11.
Looking ahead, the Committee finds it inconceivable
that in the year 2006 the EU institutions will approve a second
revised set of guidelines for a mere four-year period. By its
infrastructure planning has to be an ongoing
very nature,
process that responds to anticipated changes in needs and in a
whole host of other relevant factors.

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/15

6.12. Whether this continuity in planning is ultimately
assured by the use of a rolling plan or a new plan with its own
firm deadlines, the EU institutions will still be able to extend
their MTN-T planning horizons, using a 10 or 15 year
perspective. The Committee considers that this is the approach
which should underpin the first and subsequent revisions of
the guidelines.

6.12.1.
A longer-term planning perspective is also consis-
tent with the Commission’s proposal to revise the financial
regulation so as to allow the establishment of multi-annual
indicative programmes, the purpose of which is to provide a
medium-term planning framework for project financing.

As already suggested in some of the comments made
6.13.
above,
the
the Committee has serious misgivings about
report’s shift of emphasis away from the construction of
new infrastructure and towards optimum use of existing
infrastructure, which is mooted as a possible common policy.
The Committee stresses that the aim must be to:

•

select the most appropriate course of action for each case,
as explained in points 3.12 to 3.14;

• never forget that infrastructure is built solely in order to
be used, and that there is always scope for seeking ways of
exploiting it to the best possible effect and seeing that it
provides the best possible service.

6.14.
The Committee considers that the integrated and
multimodal nature of the TEN-T — in which the various
form a coherent
modes are not simply juxtaposed, but
whole — is crucial for properly addressing the problems of
interoperability, basic technical standards, and uniform service
quality. Once again, prior planning of the TEN-T along the
lines set out in points 5,1 to 5,9 is vital if the guidelines are to
be revised in a totally consistent manner.

Brussels, 3 June 1999.

the MTN-T,

importance in the development of

Although environmental aspects are undoubtedly of
6.15.
vital
the
Committee is somewhat perplexed at the link which the report
establishes between ‘priorities’ and ‘environment’. From the
point of view of interpretation, the problem might lie in
Article 5 of Decision 1692/96/EC, which mentions ‘integration
of environmental concerns into the design and development
is one thing for the environmental
of
dimension to be a priority for the design of the MTN-T, but
quite another for it
to determine specific implementing
priorities.

the network’.

It

In the Committee’s view, environmental problems
6.16.
will affect the way in which a project is implemented, the
measures needed to resolve its external
impact, and even
perhaps whether it is implemented at all (such extreme cases
would have to be evaluated in the light of the strategic
environmental assessment required under Article 8 of Deci-
sion 1692/96/EC). However, the Committee does not under-
stand why environmental aspects should have a direct influ-
ence on the setting of priorities. It is quite possible that projects
impact may not be the most
with a lesser environmental
necessary or the most urgent (or vice versa).

6.17.
The 1998 report mentions the need for a procedure
to adapt the Community guidelines to policies and priorities
that are constantly changing. It is noteworthy that the report
refers to the purpose of this procedure as being ‘to withdraw
or modify projects that are included in the guidelines’. Such a
concern is a welcome contrast to the initial planning of the
TEN-T, which (once again, as far as the Committee is aware)
very seldom used systematic, standardized procedures for the
inclusion of infrastructure (aside from the individual plans of
each Member State).

The Committee considers that when dealing with
6.18.
procedural issues — and paradoxical though this may seem at
first sight — it is only by reference to basic planning and
organizational principles and a few clear and practical priority
criteria that it will be possible to provide a coherent response
to changes in policies and in social priorities.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER