Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors'
Date: 2000-03-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, cooperation policy, social dialogue, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

C 117/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Implementation of the structured social
dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors’

(2000/C 117/03)

On 28 January 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the following subject on ‘Implementation of the structured social
dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
drawing up the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 February 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 370th plenary session on 1 and 2 March 2000 (meeting of 1 March), the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 113 votes in favour, with four abstentions.

1. Purpose of the opinion

Since the first pan-European transport conference
1.1.
(1991) in Prague, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC)
has committed itself to involving socio-economic groups —
particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe — in
political cooperation. This preoccupation has been expressed
in a series of opinions (1) and is widely supported both by the
organisations concerned and by political
institutions. An
important consequence of the ESC initiative was the inclusion
of Principle 10 in the Helsinki Declaration (1997). It describes
the consultation of socio-economic groups in the development
of transport policy as an integral part of the common policy,
with a view to achieving the objectives set out
in the
Declaration.

Despite the expressed commitment of the governments con-
cerned,
in practice most Central and Eastern European
countries flagrantly disregard this principle. The problem of
insufficient coordination and transparency at national level is
mirrored at international level and prevents the socio-econom-
ic groups from playing an active role in European integration.
The politicians do little to counter this deplorable state of
affairs. Apart from the activities of the ESC, hardly anything
has been done to implement the consultation principle since
the Helsinki Conference. The ESC will therefore have to renew
its efforts in this area.

1.2.
The comments in this opinion are intended in particu-
lar to put into practice the conclusions of the most recent
ESC opinion, entitled ‘The implementation of the Helsinki
declaration — establishing concrete machinery for consulting
the economic and social interest groups on the definition of a
pan-European transport policy’ (2). The ESC has repeatedly
the consultation principle in the context of
stated that

(1) ‘Pan-European transport conference and social dialogue — from

Crete to Helsinki’, OJ C 204, 15.7.1996, p. 96.
‘Connecting the Union’s transport infrastructure network to its
neighbours — towards a cooperative pan-European transport
network policy’, OJ C 129, 27.4.1998.

(2) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 100.

pan-European transport policy has received virtually no atten-
tion, despite the fact
that such a mechanism offers an
outstanding opportunity in the European integration process
to promote stable democratic development with the support
of citizens and their socio-economic organisations. The ESC
has made it its task to give substance to Principle 10 of
the Helsinki Declaration and show what opportunities are
contained in it. This includes calling for the support of all
those who, by endorsing the Helsinki Declaration, have made
a commitment to help implement it.

1.3.
In a changing institutional structure after the entry into
force of the Treaty of Amsterdam and under the altered
conditions of the Economic and Monetary Union and of the
next stage in the enlargement process, the ESC is strengthening
its institutional role as a forum and bridge for European
socio-economic interest groups and in terms of its newly
gained advisory role vis-à-vis the European Parliament. This is
particularly important in relation to certain countries outside
the Community, such as the central and eastern European
countries. For the Committee it is a matter of giving its work a
greater representativeness and impact and of playing an active
role in the process of enlarging and democratising the EU.

2. Essence of the plan for consultations

2.1.
The ESC has agreed to promote consultations with the
socio-economic groups in connection with transport policy
cooperation in the ten priority corridors and the four transport
areas (PETrAS) agreed upon at Helsinki in 1997. To this end a
plan for a structured social dialogue was outlined. The
important points of this approach need to be covered once
again here. To avoid ambiguities, ‘structured dialogue’ will be
the term used throughout this opinion. The social dialogue is
strictly speaking a matter for the social partners and not the
subject of the consultations covered by this opinion.

26.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/13

2.2.
Along these corridors and in these transport areas,
representatives of employers’ associations, trade unions, and
other interest groups are to meet to discuss problems, possible
solutions and demands to be presented to political authorities,
but also to build a forum in which policy expectations can
themselves be discussed. Such meetings should be closely
linked with the work of the steering committees set up by the
governments involved. They can also base their approach on
that of the existing committees for cooperation between the
railway undertakings involved. A dialogue of this kind has the
objective of
infrastructure with the
development of efficient transport services. Only in this way
can the most benefit be gained from the scarce funds available
for infrastructure investment. At the same time, joint projects
will have more chance of being completed successfully if
economic, social and environmental goals can be linked at an
early stage, so that social acceptability is furthered. Moreover,
a structured dialogue should strengthen the important social
function of employers’ associations, trade unions and other
interest groups in the central and eastern European countries
(CEEC).

linking extension of

2.3.
Cooperation in the corridors and transport areas
should be characterised by continuity and commitment with-
out imposing rigid structures from outside. The 1998 ESC
questionnaire filled in by potential participants from central
and eastern Europe showed that it seems sensible to use
co-ordinators from those countries. This cooperation would
not compete with cooperation in the relevant international
organisations of the associations or at political level. The aim
is rather to establish a balanced, constructive and practical
form of communication between the various interest groups
in the countries concerned and the transport operators.

2.4.
The subject matter of cooperation would be all the
questions which need to be resolved in the context of a
properly operating transport system. Account must be taken
of current requirements in the context of a common European
transport policy, and specifically requirements for action in
individual corridors and transport areas. The basis is the
transport policy aims and measures agreed upon in the
Helsinki Declaration.

The fundamental aim is to promote the development
2.5.
of a social market economy and social cohesion in a wider
Union, where social forces which support market-orientated
and environmentally and socially responsible economic devel-
opment will be backed up. This can be summed up as a need
to strengthen the links between the countries of the Union, the
candidate countries and the remaining European states.

The ESC attaches special importance to the transport
2.6.
corridors as a connecting link and a basis for cross-frontier
cooperation: they are the link between the countries of Europe
even beyond the projected EU enlargement. In this respect the
extension of the corridor concept to central and eastern Europe
is essential and the activities should not be confined to the
applicant countries. The pan-European perspective must be

retained. This corresponds to the spirit and the letter of the
Helsinki Declaration, which refers to cross-frontier corridors
extending to the Far East and Middle East and transport areas
extending far beyond the borders of an enlarged EU.

2.7.
The ESC sees its task as being to act as initiator,
discussion partner and if necessary coordination point for
activities on the spot. The ESC also feels it has a responsibility
to represent the interests of socio-economic groups in the
process of monitoring the implementation of the Helsinki
Declaration vis-à-vis the other EU institutions and European
organisations concerned. These activities must always be
tailored to the perceived need and must be regularly reviewed
in the light of political developments.

3. Survey of current work

3.1.
On 20-21 January 1999 the G-24 transport working
group met in Brussels. This goes back to a joint initiative of
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) and the EU Commission on cooperation in the field
of transport policy in central and eastern Europe.

At the invitation of the Commission, about 100 rep-
3.1.1.
resentatives of governments, administrations, financial insti-
tutes and the private sector discussed progress in building a
pan-European transport network. The ESC was also represent-
ed. The main focus was on work in the Helsinki corridors and
areas.

Among other things, it was agreed that, in addition
3.1.2.
logistic and
to the necessary infrastructure development,
operational conditions should in future be further improved
to make cross-frontier and intermodal services more efficient.
There was also a need for action on the recording of transport
data and the strengthening of environmental protection. As a
further development of infrastructure network planning in
relation to Asia, the TRACECA project was presented; this
results from a Commission initiative of 1993, and sketches
out
the connection between the pan-European transport
network and Central Asia via the Black Sea.

3.1.3.
The G-24 transport working group is to go on
meeting annually. At this point it should be mentioned that,
this working group is to
according to the Commission,
coordinate activities in implementation of the Helsinki Declar-
ation and to establish the necessary transparency between the
institutions and organisations involved. At the next meeting,
planned for early 2000, the ESC should report on its own
activities in this field. At the same time, the ESC perceives a
need for clarification as to the role of the G-24 transport
working group: its working methods, the way the participants
view their policies and communications between those
involved. The ESC will endeavour to have these questions
discussed at the next meeting of the G-24 transport working
group.

C 117/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

3.2.
A Conference was held on 10 December 1998 at the
invitation of the European Parliament (EP), on ‘Pan-European
transport policy: prospects and priorities for east-west cooper-
ation’. Intended as a follow-up to the Helsinki conference, it
provided a forum for an exchange of views focusing on the
aims and means of east-west cooperation, the development of
integrated transport systems and the possibilities for funding
the trans-European networks. The ESC was invited to report
on its work in this field.

Since then the transport committee of the EP has
3.2.1.
produced a report on the follow-up to the Helsinki conference
on a pan-European transport policy. The rapporteur was
Günter Lüttge. The report concentrates on the implementation
of the transport policy measures set out in the Helsinki
Declaration, and calls inter alia for a more coordinated
approach.
It confirms the approach of holding a broad
social dialogue, which was also characteristic of the three
pan-European transport conferences, and in particular the
involvement of the social partners and non-governmental
organisations. The ESC’s proposals for participation by, and a
structured dialogue between, the socio-economic groups in
the context of pan-European transport policy are expressly
endorsed.

realistic basis for planning. Considerable doubts were also
expressed on the funding arrangements.

3.3.3.
Another hearing is planned, to take place once the
work on the TINA report has been completed. The final report
has been available since autumn 1999. The work of the TINA
secretariat should also be pursued in future, to support the
implementation of infrastructure planning in the applicant
countries and contribute to work on the corridors.

4. Corridor IV pilot project

Corridor IV is a multimodal transport axis linking
4.1.
north-west Europe with south-east Europe.
It runs from
Dresden and Nuremberg through Prague, Vienna/Bratislava
and Budapest to Romania. There it divides into a northern
branch leading to Constanza and a southern branch from Arad
to Sofia, then splits again into links with Thessaloniki and
Istanbul respectively (full data on the Corridor can be found in
the G-24 progress report) (1).

On 18 and 19 March 1999 there was a hearing on the
3.3.
TINA report
(Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment),
which was commissioned by the European Commission to
indicate the priority infrastructure needs of the applicant
countries.

4.1.1.
Corridor IV includes 4 440 km of railway, 3 740 km
of roads, 14 airports and 10 seaports or inland waterway
ports. In the applicant countries alone, it is planned to invest
ECU 16 620 million between now and 2015; this does not
include the investments in Germany, Austria, Greece and
Turkey.

The hearing was jointly organised by the ESC and
3.3.1.
the Commission’s DG VII, supported by the latter’s TINA
secretariat set up for the purpose in Vienna. The objective was
to ascertain the views and experience of the socio-economic
groups from the countries concerned and to make it possible
for them to discuss the proposals and conclusions in the report
before it is finally adopted. About 40 people took part in the
hearing.

3.3.2.
Apart from the more comprehensive conclusions to
be drawn from speeches and debates, which are covered by a
separate report, the importance of the hearing itself is that it
was a first practical step to implement the Helsinki Declaration,
through which the Committee’s involvement and the Com-
mission’s work could rationally complement each other.
The hearing brought out two aspects: firstly, the need for
information and exchange of views — both among the
associations themselves and with the European Union’s pol-
icy-makers — remains enormous; secondly, the expertise and
practical experience of the associations on the spot are a more
important and more necessary component
in building a
common pan-European transport policy, for which there has
been too little scope so far.

The steering committee was set up early in 1998. A
4.1.2.
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has since been signed.
The railway undertakings involved have continuously broad-
ened their cooperation, and in conjunction with the agreement
on a MoU decided on a common work programme at the start
of 1997.

4.2.
The third meeting of the Corridor IV steering com-
mittee was held in Prague from 30 June to 1 July 1999. The
rapporteur took part in that meeting and was able to express
the ESC’s concerns.

It became clear that a structured dialogue with the
4.2.1.
appropriate representatives of enterprises, trade unions and
other interest groups can provide useful support for the work
of the steering committee. Of prime importance are the
development of high quality transport services and the creation
of a favourable climate for investment and jobs. Another
important function of the structured dialogue, however, is the
establishment of transparency and the exchange of practical
experience on as broad a base as possible, to remove barriers
to smooth operation in a way which satisfies all parties. The
ESC’s statements on the matter are included in the minutes of
the meeting (see Appendix I).

This dialogue is particularly important since the infrastructure
requirements listed in the TINA report were interpreted by
many participants in the hearing as more of a wish list than a

(1) Status of the Pan-European Transport Corridors and Transport

Areas, TINA office, Vienna, December 1998.

26.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/15

4.2.2.
In addition to the most varied questions which arise
in relation to such a link, there are special problems at
present. Two major projects dominate the debate: the planned
Bosphorus tunnel to provide a road and rail link with Asia;
and a second bridge over the Danube between Vidin (Bulgaria)
and Calafat (Romania). A lengthy, heated debate continues on
the latter. A decisive factor for Corridor IV is that it has to
cope with new traffic flows since the war in the Balkans. How
to do this in future is primarily a question for the railways. The
severely limited navigability of the Danube, which can hardly
be improved in the short term because of the political situation,
calls for favourable alternative mass transport possibilities.
Finally, frontier crossing delays are a problem in this Corridor
also.

4.2.3.
The members of the steering committee willingly
accepted the ESC’s cooperation offer. It was agreed to support
the ESC’s activities in the Corridor and to report on the results
at the latest at the next steering committee meeting in the
annual cycle. Close cooperation with the newly set up Corridor
IV secretariat in Dresden would have to be ensured.

4.3.3.
Finally, the discussions in Budapest led to an initiative
for a bilateral meeting of Bulgarian and Romanian business and
trade union representatives, concentrating on the controversy
over the question of an additional Danube crossing between
the two countries. The ESC is invited to this meeting at the
express wish of the participants; it will be held in February
2000 in Vidin (Bulgaria) and Calafat (Romania).

5. Practical consequences for future work

5.1.
The first Corridor meeting as part of a structured social
dialogue was a success and confirmed the ESC’s basic approach.
Now the decisive question is how the organisation, monitoring
and coordination of the structured dialogue in transport
corridors and transport areas can be guaranteed in practice, at
least for the foreseeable future. For this, action is needed on
three fronts:

a)

securing the ESC’s role as coordinator (N.B. also the joint
consultative committees);

in Corridor

On the ESC’s initiative, a first meeting of the structured
4.3.
dialogue
in Budapest on
IV took place
26/27 October 1999. The Hungarian transport ministry and
Hungarian railway organisation (MAV) also played a leading
role in its organisation.

b) practical organisation of and financial provision for the

Corridor meetings;

c) building up contacts and team structures on the spot in

the countries concerned.

4.3.1.
The ESC’s invitation was accepted by about 40 rep-
resentatives of socio-economic interest groups from the
countries traversed by Corridor IV, as well as representatives
of the Corridor IV Steering Committee and the TINA sec-
retariat, and interested observers from individual EU Member
States. The discussion covered many themes, starting with
basic information on the Corridor, then focusing on:

— the link between infrastructure development and private
funding in the light of economic development and public
service interests;

— technical and organisational aspects of the optimal pro-
vision of services in the Corridor, linked with discussion of
social aspects and the prospects for cooperation;

— implications of the Corridor for regional development and

environment policy.

The meeting brought to light a wide range of views,
4.3.2.
providing many constructive links in support of cooperation
in the Corridor. It gave rise to a joint resolution underlining
the interest in a structured dialogue and emphasising practical
steps for its implementation and a number of concrete topics
for the dialogue. The precise wording of the resolution can be
found in Appendix II of this opinion.

5.2.
The first step in consolidating the ESC’s role is to set
up a permanent study group. A decision on this will be
sought after the close of the study group’s work . Practical
considerations, on which the work of the permanent study
groups over the next year should be based, are set out in
section 6 below.

5.3.
The practical arrangements and financial provision for
the Corridor meetings require professional organisation. Travel
allowances should be available when needed to ensure bal-
anced participation. The content of the meetings must be
prepared and their
results documented. Communication
between participants must also be ensured between meetings,
through a central contact point. The ESC cannot guarantee to
carry out this practical work in the long term on the basis of
its current resources.

However, in order to create the necessary practical support, it
would make sense to draw up an independent project on the
basis of the existing possibilities of assistance through EU
programmes. This is of course made more difficult by the
existing allocation among countries of the Phare and Tacis
programmes, which are not multilateral.

An important boost to such an initiative not only in financial
terms but also in terms of political weight would in this
case be the setting-up of a ‘supporters’ circle’. Preliminary
discussions with individuals have made clear their support for
this idea.

C 117/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

5.4.
Building up cooperation structures for socio-economic
interest groups in the corridors and transport areas depends
mainly on the interests of the participants. At the same time,
they are a precondition for a rational organisation of work,
and expressly called for by many individuals. It should be
borne in mind that the ESC questionnaire of 1998 produced a
clear vote in favour of appointing coordinators from their own
ranks. Transport trade unions have in some cases started to
form corridor-related teams. Practical approaches and ideas
should be passed on.

6. Prospects

6.1.
The consultations in the pan-European transport corri-
dors and areas should promote economic and social develop-
ment and strengthen cohesion in Europe. Experience to date
has shown that the ESC initiative fills an important gap
and can contribute decisively to the involvement of
the
socio-economic groups. Accordingly, the experiences of Bu-
dapest and of Corridor IV should be further developed. The
ESC should have the possibility of organising further Corridor
meetings next year and further building up the network
of socio-economic players. There is still the possibility of
cooperating with the Commission to hold a joint hearing on
the final TINA report. The further points below should be
taken into account in this work.

The problems of development beyond the borders of
6.2.
an enlarged EU have been mentioned repeatedly. In parallel
with the tasks of the TINA secretariat, the ESC also sees a need
to negotiate technical and political support
for corridor
planning particularly on the territories of the CIS (Community
of Independent States). As far as the next steps in consultations
with the socio-economic interest groups in another corridor
or transport area are concerned , the involvement of the CIS
should be ensured.

Brussels, 1 March 2000.

6.3.
To support cooperation in the transport corridors it
makes sense to set up secretariats, as has been done on
personal initiative in the case of Corridor IV. The ESC suggests
that general rules be laid down for this purpose.

6.4.
The concept of transport corridors and areas is essen-
tially multimodal. In practice, however, some gaps in the
system are discernible. In future, more account should be
taken of airports,
inland waterways and ports, and public
passenger transport in the conurbations concerned.

The principle of transport and regional policy cooper-
6.5.
ation on one corridor also arouses the interest of socio-econ-
omic groups within the EU. For example, such an initiative
exists in Corridor V and its TEN extension to Spain. Where
appropriate, activities of this kind should be considered.

6.6.
In an earlier opinion (see footnote 2, p. 12) the ESC set
great store by support for cooperation in two corridors:
Corridor VII (Danube) and Corridor X (on the territory of the
former Yugoslavia). Interest in this has been clearly expressed
by the socio-economic groups concerned. It should be stressed
once again that, once the political situation allows, this interest
in cooperation should be put into practice.

Finally,

it should be pointed out that very little is
6.7.
known about work in the transport areas. In comparison with
developments in the corridors, it seems there is some catching
up to do here.

6.8.
The Commission and the European Parliament should
be kept continuously informed of the ESC’s standpoint and
activities, especially using the EP’s political contacts with the
parliaments of the countries and regions concerned, so that the
ESC can play its part, as a forum for European socio-economic
interest groups, in the context of the ‘monitoring process’ to
implement the Helsinki Declaration, in the establishment of a
pan-European transport system.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

26.4.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/17

APPENDIX I

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Appendix to the Minutes of the meeting of the Corridor IV Steering Committee

The European Economic and Social Committee (ESC) is a consultative institution which represents employers’
organisations, trade unions and special interest groups at EU level. The ESC has argued strongly for the integration
of the socio-economic interest groups of the countries concerned in the enlargement process. The aim is to encourage
rapid and stable development in order to boost economic and social progress. In the framework of the existing
European agreements, joint consultative committees were established, for example with Bulgaria and Turkey.

The ESC has been actively involved in pan-European transport policy since the first conference in Prague (1991); its
main aim has been to put into practice the consultation of economic and social interest groups, one of the ten basic
principles on the future shape of the pan-European transport system finally enshrined in the Helsinki Declaration.

In this context the work in the corridors is of vital importance because it helps to build an efficient transport
infrastructure, the backbone of economic growth and social development. We offer our support to the Corridor IV
steering committee in bringing in our experience and contacts to enable the members to consult with representatives
of industry and socio-economic groups from the transport sector to solve operational problems and to discuss topics
on the agenda where appropriate. We are certain that the huge amount of investment in the transport infrastructure
has to be combined with efforts to develop the quality of transport services. This can only have a good chance of
success if the players concerned collaborate at an early stage.

We would like to support, in close contact with the secretariat now being established in Dresden, the work of the
Corridor IV steering committee on the main future topics on the agenda of the working programme, e.g. border
crossings, bridge/dam over the Danube. We also propose to exchange information and experience that the study
group of the ESC is gathering while cooperating with the socio-economic groups in the corridor.

We propose to start these activities in the coming months and to report the results at the next steering committee
meeting. It might be a good idea, depending on the agenda, to invite certain experts who have in the meantime
become involved in the work to debate with the steering committee members.

C 117/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.4.2000

APPENDIX II

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Resolution

Representatives of socio-economic groups from the countries involved in Corridor IV, meeting in Budapest on
26-27 October 1999, invited by the European Economic and Social Committee with the support of the Hungarian
Ministry of Transport and the Hungarian Railways (MA´ V),

A.

B.

C.

following the principles and means of the Helsinki declaration, which aims at ensuring the sustainable mobility
of persons and goods under the best possible social and safety conditions, fair competition and environmental
protection;

stressing in particular principle 10 of the Helsinki declaration, which asks for consultation of socio-economic
groups in the framework of a pan-European transport policy;

in respect of the work that has been done by the parties involved, namely the European Commission, the
Ministers of Transport, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the European Conference
of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN-ECE) and
the railway corridor steering committees;

1.

express their wish for closer cooperation in Corridor IV to make the pan-European corridors a means for
economic and social cohesion in the whole of Europe;

2. demand that consultation with socio-economic groups form an integral part of corridor cooperation and that

financial means be found to realise this objective;

3.

4.

5.

stress the need for more transparency and information, also with respect to institutional structures;

suggest regular meetings in close cooperation with the corridors steering committees focusing on main issues
where practical solutions will have to be found;

ask for the assistance of the other parties involved in the corridors and call for help in financing these activities;
a coordinating role for the Economic and Social Committee would be appreciated;

6. highlight the following subjects for Corridor IV in particular:

— hearing concerning the final Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) Report,

— solution to the question of the new bridge over the Danube, using the Instrument for Structural Policies for
Pre-accession (ISPA) to evaluate socio-economic consequences of this project, taking account of the interests
of Romania in the northern link of Corridor IV, with the possibility of involving all interested parties; the
Economic and Social Committee offers to moderate the discussion if requested;

— corridor report on environment and transport including aspects relating to social costs and efficiency;

— common efforts to improve interoperability and border crossings.

Budapest, October 1999.