Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission on 'Cohesion and transport''
Date: 1999-07-07
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, economic and social cohesion

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/35

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
on “Cohesion and transport”’

(1999/C 258/09)

On 14 January 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Communication from the
Commission on “Cohesion and transport”’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 June 1999. The
rapporteur was Mr Tosh.

At its 365th plenary session (meeting of 7 July 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 104 votes to two.

1.

Introduction

This opinion consists of five sections, the introduction
1.1.
followed by section two which provides a summarised over-
view of the content of the communication from the Com-
mission.

1.2.
In the third and fourth sections the Committee has
undertaken a clinical review of the document and tables. It
provides general comments and recommendations. Finally, the
fifth section outlines overall conclusions.

1.3.
Given the somewhat intangible character of the Com-
munication messages and the importance and expansion of
the EU transport budget during the next
the
Committee has attempted to signal clinical review and control
features and provisions it believes are essential
to bring
conviction to Cohesion and Transport evolution.

five years,

1.4.
The interwoven relationships of various funding mech-
anisms — Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and European
Investment Bank (EIB) — have been considered in the context
of evolving Common Transport Policy and Spatial Develop-
ment Policy where the importance of the matrix for enlarge-
ment must be clearly understood. This opinion provides
recommendations on how the Commission may be able to
more effectively integrate the disparate financial instruments
supporting transport measures in support of the overall goals
of the EU. The relative importance of Structural Funds spending
for transport is about ten times that of the Cohesion Fund.

development throughout. Its focus is directed to mitigate
against (i) peripherality, (ii) disadvantaged regions and (iii)
disadvantaged groups of people(s).

2.2.
The communication signals the importance of con-
verging aims of (i) Structural Funds Programmes and Initiatives
(ERDF, Interreg), (ii) Cohesion Fund Programmes and (iii) EIB
support.

2.3.
The Common Transport Policy (CTP) aims to reinfor-
ce/enhance the needs of people and of the economy to
promote prospects and competitiveness.

2.4.
The communication conveys that co-ordinated and
well conceived regional policies are believed to be the appropri-
ate channel to deliver:

— economic development (growth, competitiveness, employ-

ment);

— balanced development throughout the EU;

— conducive conditions for future enlargement;

— improved mobility for all disadvantaged, both economi-

cally and impaired

without compromising environmental goals.

It outlines disparities where transport can influence

2.5.
improvement to:

— reduce demographic centralising shifts contributing to

congestion and environmental impact;

— improve peripheral access and service availability to bring

prosperity through competitiveness;

2. Summary of the Commission Communication

— freight costs as an investment variable.

2.1.
The communication relays the European Union aspir-
ation to (a) release the drive for economic convergence and (b)
promote social integration, and the significance that transport
for sustainable
infrastructure brings to this commitment

The Communication claims that transport improve-

2.6.
ments can create:

— both the opportunity for increasing access for inputs and

to markets for outputs; and

C 258/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.9.1999

— if tailored, durable and sustainable economic growth, and

— avoiding market-only driven transport policies by ascribing

employment can result;

social and general economic value;

but needs to recognise that:

— competing alternative growth drivers e.g. telecommuni-

cations;

— creating operator award procedures to protect service
for the more

quality, employing selectively cabotage,
peripheral links.

— employment creation is as important as access into

Peripheral Disadvantaged Regions (PDRs).

2.12.
Pricing for infrastructure use is suggested to only
reflect/recover marginal costs, through levies, and the sugges-
tion is that as a result:

2.7.
Investment spending will increasingly be directed more
at people and targeted social needs, by filling major transport
and infrastructure gaps, whilst recognising that affluent Mem-
ber States include pockets where transport will release under-
performance or increase disparities. It gives explicit emphasis
to the future role of public transport in realising these goals.

2.8.
The gap filling is addressed by broad brush EU funding
programmes performing in concert to promote development;
and cohesion funding is a key supplementary.

2.9.

EU spending focuses heavily on road transport:

— 2/3 of ERDF investment

in transport

for the period

1994-1999;

— 2/3 of Cohesion Fund investment in transport between

1993 and 1999;

— EIB’s lending directed to regional objectives (transport is

sub-set).

It is to be noted that 1/4 of the EIB’s lending for regional
development projects includes cofinancing operations with
the Structural Funds.

2.10.
The communication recognises that national develop-
ment plans have led to the creation of many inconsistencies
and barriers leading to an unbalanced use of the European
territory and the need for a European Spatial Development
Perspective through global management. Public/private finance
cooperation and social partnership should ensure a coherent
joint vision for the development of Europe’s territory.

2.11.
promote regional cohesion by:

It relays the belief in the outcome of liberalisation to

— providing available and affordable transport services for all

in the EU;

— providing a regulatory framework to police outcome and
ensure sustainable choice between modes of transport;

— efficiency improves through optimal selection with lower

transport costs;

— peripheral costs ‘may’ disimprove;

— peripheral production will be modified to dislodge low

value addition output.

2.13.
ports and terminals,
diversification of network links.

The thrust to integrate transport modes, with all
is identified as part of the essential

3. General comments

3.1. Whilst the Committee supports the ethos of Cohesion
principles, it finds little historical evidence of the value of
Structural and Cohesion Funds’ expenditure in support of
delivering the aims described under 2.1.

3.1.1.
The Committee believes that the appended tables
contribute little either to the understanding of the principles
underpinning Cohesion expenditure in Transport or to provid-
ing evidence in support of the claims made concerning the
impact of EU intervention. They are outdated and are not
referred to in the Communication to support its thrust(s). Nor
is there supporting evidence of how Cohesion Fund spending
have interacted with Structural Funds and EIB financing to
meet declared aims.

3.2. Whilst recognising the difficulties in establishing cause
and effect, the absence of case study or operational audits
frustrates judgement of the policy and expenditure. There was
concern that delegation of the management of the funds to
respect subsidiarity could see less than optimal priorities
adopted, with e.g. concentration and growth in conurbations
possible, if only market driven objectives for Transport are
pursued. Moreover, emphasis on market driven objectives pose
difficulties for ensuring that public transport is of adequate
quality, either to meet locally the social inclusion and equity
goals of the EU or to promote sustainable mobility and reduce
dependence on cars.

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/37

3.3.
Coordination of Cohesion spending on transport
where inter-regional aspects were important was not exam-
ined, nor were external linkages to non-member countries.
Transit routes through non-cohesion countries were also
ignored in the communication despite their obvious value
strategically.

The essay style of the Communication, with its repeti-
3.4.
tive assertions of the added-value of Cohesion impact,
if
anything, irritates and underscores the absence of validation
and undermines its conviction.

3.5.
The high proportion of Cohesion expenditure on road
infrastructure is of concern in the light of policies on
social cohesion and sustainability. For the individual, socially
justifiable cohesion investment to create sustainable develop-
ment and mobility, whilst at the same time balancing the
environmental impact, is the objective. Financing future public
transport requirements needs considerably greater attention
particularly given the absence of financial viability achieved by
many public transport initiatives.

For the future, the Committee believes the EU must

3.6.
increase its efforts on public transport services, because:

— public transport plays a supplementary role in relieving

social exclusion, and

— good public transport services reduce the detrimental effect

on our environment.

4. General recommendations

4.1.
The Committee recognises that whilst Member States
set their own investment priorities, Structural and Cohesion
Funds’ principles overlay subsidiarity and competence for
programmes should rest with the European Union if it is to
pursue Cohesion objectives. Specific programmes should be
developed and imaginative financial instruments created to
attract private finance and partnerships between the EU,
Member States and operators. The potential
for funding
transport via marginal social cost pricing needs to be identified
and such a policy should be adopted as a matter of principle (1).
Nonetheless, peripheral areas of the EU and other disadvan-
taged areas may require special dispensations from such
provisions where sustainable transport options are not either
available or financially viable. Wider remit
interregional
Cohesion programmes should be encouraged in such an
environment.

Investment

4.2.
in transport must be set strategically.
Common constraints to guide subsidiarity should be evolved.

(1) OJ C 56, 24.2.1997, p. 31 — OJ C 138, 18.5.1999, p. 7.

Linkage to output targets for qualifying projects would assist
prioritisation. Specific recommendations on interoperability,
trans-Europe and locally, will assist benefit-development on a
common playing field.

4.3.
Investment in rail, sea transport, waterways and short
links are
sea crossings should expand where intermodal
included, in preference but normally and necessarily alongside
road investments where appropriate.

The Committee believes that

4.4.
links are
worth more recognition and evolutionary support in Cohesion
programmes.

intermodal

4.5.
The Committee feels that efficiency in identifying
cohesion spending in transport can only be achieved if the
social partners influence is embodied in the decision making
process.

The scope for transport expenditure in support of
4.6.
cohesion, post enlargement, should be explored rigorously
now. It will be ever more imperative that the efficiency of
resource allocation, and the policing of expenditure are
proactively driven by regional economies where globalisation
is clearly recognised.

Clear evaluation of the impact of infrastructure ‘pricing’
the impact
loss is a clear possibility and

4.7.
on peripheries should be pursued to reveal
on production where net
counterproductive to measures in favour of cohesion.

4.8.
It also believes that where peripheral regions are cut
off by sea such as exists in part in Greece and in Ireland, and
by distance such as in the Iberian peninsula, or by poor levels
of transport service with non member adjacent countries, these
regions should be considered for support because they do and
will continue to suffer transport cost disadvantage to market.
GNP status should not be the sole defining criteria. Additional
indicators could include for instance accessibility measures.
Funding needs to be extended beyond those countries defined
as Cohesion countries.

The Committee is of the view that consultation with
4.9.
the social partners in the Cohesion regions could impact
constructively on the programmes and could lever the cross
functional aspects of expenditure to optimise the principles
featured under 2.1.

4.10.
Long-term financing of Transport as a Cohesion
feature should be examined by the Commission and the link(s)
with balanced economic development, with improving the
lot of disadvantaged people with services, and with aiding
enlargement, defined. Despite their acknowledgement by the

C 258/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.9.1999

Commission, the inherent difficulties are unlikely to diminish
in an enlarged Union and the adoption of quality bench-
marking as an aid is advised. By definition this requires that
much greater emphasis on policy and resource allocation be
given to public transport.

4.11.
The Committee recognises the common objectives of
this Opinion and that on the European Spatial Development
Perspective (1) which it adopted in September 1998, as both
clearly feature the ‘reorientation of policies with a spatial
impact’. In that Opinion, the Committee stresses that quality
of life should be an underlying aim of any spatial initiative. It
also signals, for instance, that ‘uplands’ exhibit peripheral
characteristics. It fits with the view that transnational and
cross-border approaches should be coordinated as well as links
should be established between all policies on socio-economic
regeneration. The Committee notes the dangers associated
with over concentration of activity in the core at the expense
of the periphery and believes that inter-peripheral links could
go some way to offset centripetal forces.

4.12.
The Committee would reiterate the views expressed
in its Opinion of September 1998 on the Commission
proposal on the granting of Community financial aid in the
field of trans-European networks (2) which will permit the
Commission to finance 100 % studies of an overall strategic
nature. These studies should help supporting and improving
the validation of Cohesion spending. It is noted that the TEN’s
Transport budget for the years 2000 to 2006 is proposed to
amount at ECU 4992 million, which means an increase
of 277 % compared to the period 1995-1999. Given this
acceleration and scale it is questionable as to whether the
cohesion impact on transport development will be measurable.

4.13.
The Committee believes the Commission should
recognise the claims for air links and railway development
despite their high initial investment costs in peripheral regions
and particularly for linking enlargement countries.

the Committee
4.14. With enlargement approaching,
believes that
the shortcomings of some past Transport
Cohesion projects must not be repeated and strategic vision
spatial planning, environmental protection,
linking e.g.,
employment creation and rural development in a coordinated
fashion, and, where appropriate, across borders, must evolve
centrally and translate to regions for adoption and delivery.
The importance of the ISPA programme is noted.

4.15.
The Committee is of the view that a future Communi-
cation on the subject would require a restructuring so as to
include:

— a definition of cohesion based on spatial development and

proper cohesion objectives;

— the identification of specific objectives and performance

indicators;

— a review of current strategies for TEN’s-T, the Cohesion
Fund and the transport components of the ERDF Fund;

— a modelling of the impacts of TEN’s-T, the Cohesion and
Structural Funds and EIB and EIF funding, regionally;

— the adoption of priorities on the basis of these impacts on
relative accessibility, competitiveness, current and potential
GDP and infrastructure deficits.

5. Conclusions

5.1.
The Committee is of the view that the purpose of the
Communication should be clarified and its objectives should
be clearly stated. It believes that the essence of the message
should be the fundamental compatibility of the following EU
objectives:

— improving peripheral regions economic development pros-

pects, competitiveness and employment;

— contributing to a balance development in the 15 Member
States and create conditions favourable to the integration
of new members;

— promoting sustainable mobility via considerable emphasis
and priority being given to improving public transport;

— ensuring the availability of transport services affordable to
those reliant on public transport and to those with
impaired mobility; and

— adopting best practices to manage the environmental
impact distilling from transport infrastructure build and
transport services adopted and promoted under Cohesion
funded programmes. It is widely recognized that road
transport is one of the main contributors to pollution.

It is essential that planning, evaluation, appraisal and
5.2.
indicators and
monitoring formats, and the adoption of
measurement techniques, draw on the Research and Techno-
logical Development programmes and other research pro-
grammes.

(1) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 85.
(2) OJ C 407, 12.1998, p. 120.

5.3.
It is also imperative that principles for peripheral
regions are developed to ensure that fair and efficient pricing

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/39

prevails and does not discriminate due to lack of alternatives
or an absence of sufficient demand to produce viable services.

Enlargement will entail additional problems for both
5.4.
new and existing Member States, and at the EU borders. It will

push the EU centre of gravity eastward which will add to the
problems already faced by existing outlying regions and will
have an impact on newly created peripheral regions. This
should be fully recognised.

Brussels, 7 July 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI