Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC-Treaty on the Council common position of 5 June 2000 concerning the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III
Date: 2000-06-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: combined transport, harbour installation, project evaluation, trans-European network, transport network













EUR-Lex - 52000SC1008 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



52000SC1008

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC-Treaty on the Council common position of 5 June 2000 concerning the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III  /* SEC/2000/1008 final - COD 97/0358 */  









COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT   pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC-Treaty  on the  Council common position of 5 June 2000 concerning the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project No 8 in Annex III1. Historical backgroundOn 10 December 1997 the Commission adopted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision N° 1692/96/EC as regards seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals as well as project N° 8 in Annex III (COM (1997) 681 final - 1997/0358/COD).The European Parliament delivered its opinion on the proposal in first reading on 10 March 1999. On this occasion it adopted 13 amendments which contain at least 22 modifications.In response to the Parliament's opinion, the Commission submitted an amended proposal for a Decision to Parliament and Council on 17 June 1999 (COM (1999) 277 final).The Economic and Social Committee delivered its opinion on 29 April 1998.The Committee of the Regions delivered its opinion on 17 September 1998.The Council adopted its common position on 5 June 2000 by unanimity.2. Objective of the Commission ProposalThe objective of the amending proposal is to complement Decision  N° 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) by clarifying and reinforcing the position of seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in the network.Part 1 of the proposal aims at amending the characteristics of seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in the Decision, suggests criteria for their identification in Annex I and seeks to improve the definition of relevant projects of common interest relating to seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in Annex II.It is also proposed to assist the development of Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways.Part 2 of the proposal makes a change to the specific project N° 8 in Annex III (the list of the specific projects designated by the 1994 Essen European Council) from "Motorway Lisbon-Valladolid" to "Multimodal link Portugal/Spain with the rest of Europe", as requested by the governments of Spain and Portugal and endorsed by the Dublin European Council in December 1996.In all other respects the text of Decision 1692/96/EC remained unchanged.3. Comments on the common position3.1. General commentsOn the whole the Council's common position follows the main idea and structure of the Commission proposal. However, it makes several modifications to the proposed provisions on inland ports and seaports, and it does not take up the parts on intermodal terminals and the trans-European rail freight corridors.The Council accepted, totally or partially 11 of the modifications included in the 13 EP amendments.  Six of these modifications were included in the common position totally or in spirit.The Commission had accepted 11 of the EP modifications and these were reflected in the Commission's amended proposal (COM (1999) 277 final) of 17/6/1999.  From these, the Council accepted 4.The Council adopted the common position unanimously. The Commission accepted the modifications regarding the provision on seaports and inland ports as well as the rejection of the trans-European freight corridors in the spirit of a global compromise.  However, the Commission made a dissenting statement to the minutes concerning the non-inclusion of the part on intermodal terminals.3.2. Action taken on the European Parliament amendments adopted on first reading(a) Amendments accepted by the Commission and included or taken into account in the common positionAmendment 4 (Article 12 (2) Decision N° 1692/96/EC)The Commission accepted the deletion of the criterion in lit. c which would only apply to a very few negligible cases. The Council also took account of that deletion in the common position.Amendment 10 (Annex II, Section 5, Paragraph 3)The Commission agreed to a reference concerning "other intelligent management systems for freight and passenger traffic". The Council also took up the addition.Amendment 11 (Annex II, Section 5, Paragraph 4)In so far as the amendment sought to delete the "specific condition" regarding the eligibility for Community financial support of port projects, the Commission agreed to the deletion.  The Council also took account of the deletion of that clause in the common position.Amendment 13 (Annex III, N° 8)The Commission agreed that the various elements of the specific project N° 8 should be described more precisely and accepted the amendment from the Parliament.The Council also decided to include this description in the common position.b) Amendments accepted by the Commission but not included in the common positionAmendments 1, 2 and 7 (Article 10 (4), Annex II, Section 3)The Commission adhered to the Parliament's concern regarding the reference to "Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways" and reformulated the provisions by making clear that the focus lay (in the present context) rather on the development of infrastructure on trans-European rail freight corridors than on the development of the service itself.The Council did not take the reformulation up. The Commission accepted the non-inclusion of the reference in a spirit of a global compromise.Amendment 4 (Article 12 (2) Decision N° 1692/96/EC)The Commission accepted the part of the section which referred to  Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the islands in outermost regions.  The Commission was mindful however that Article 154 (2) (ex-Article 129 b) emphasises also the need to link islands and peripheral regions.  It therefore proposed that those ports on islands (and those linking the mainland to them) should also be included provided they met the threshold of 200.000 passengers on domestic and international journeys and that the respective ports were situated more than more than 5 km apart from each other.In contrast to this, the Council adopted a different approach as set out below:The common position follows a similar approach to that used for airports in section 6 of the Guidelines in that certain eligibility criteria are added, not to the enacting terms in Article 12 but to Annex II Section 5 (criteria and specifications for projects of common interest). This includes:1) A classification of seaports into three categories:-   Category A: seaports with more than 1 million tonnes freight or 200.000 passengers (domestic and international voyages) p.a.,-   Category B: seaports between 500.000 and 999.999 tonnes freight or 100.000 and 199.999 passengers p.a.,-   Category C: all seaports on islands which do not fall under category A or B.Only the ports in category A shall be shown on indicative maps in Annex I.2) A table setting out the specifications which a project must meet in order to be deemed to be of common interest and which allocates the various types of projects to the three categories of ports.The Commission accepts this change.  The ports in Category A correspond to a large extent to the ports the Commission has identified in its proposal.   The classification of the ports and the allocation of corresponding types of projects not only allows projects for the most relevant ports (Category A) to be considered as eligible projects of common interest, but also appropriate measures for minor ports, in particular ports on islands and outermost regions.The specifications of the projects of common interest relating to the seaports comply with the Commission proposal. The Commission can therefore agree with the solution in the common position.Amendment 5 (Article 14 (1) Decision N° 1692/96/EC)The Commission agreed to include the term "shortest possible initial and/or terminal road haulage" in Article 14 (1), first indent. It also agreed to the inclusion of "shipping routes" as one possibility for intermodal transport as well as to the definition of intermodal transport as "combined unitised transport (containers, trailers, swap bodies etc.)".The Council refused to amend the section of the guidelines dealing with intermodal terminals. In this respect the Commission expressed its disagreement (see point 3.3).Amendment 8 (Annex II, Section 4)The Commission accepted the change in N° 3 of the amendment and proposed to structure the categories of inland port projects similar to the seaports in Section 5.The Council maintained the existing text of the Guidelines. The Commission can accept this as the proposed change is only of an editorial nature.Amendment 9 (Annex II, Section 5)The Commission accepted the substitution of the term "port and port related infrastructure projects" by "infrastructure projects in or in connection with ports" in the first sentence of paragraph 2.In accordance with the wording in Annex II, section 6 (Airports) of the guidelines, the Council rephrased the term as "projects of common interest relating to the seaport network". The Commission can accept this editorial change, in particular in the context of the new approach followed by the Council for the seaports (see above amendment 4).Amendment 12 (Annex II, Section 7)The Commission accepted the amendment by the Parliament since it provided clarity about the eligibility of projects in connection with transhipment centres for combined transport.The Council did not take it up, as it did not want to amend the section of the guidelines dealing with intermodal terminals. In this respect the Commission expressed its disagreement (see point 3.3).c) Amendments not accepted by the Commission but included in the common positionAmendment 3 (Article 11 (3) Decision N° 1692/96/EC)The Commission did not incorporate the proposed eligibility criterion of 500.000 tonnes bulk freight p.a. for inland ports in its amended proposal. It has taken the view that the development of the trans-European transport network should focus on multimodal development and that therefore inland ports should be defined in first instance as interconnection points for intermodal freight transport.By contrast, the Council accepted the idea of the Parliament's amendment and added a bulk freight criterion in the common position, however with a minimum threshold of only 300.000 tonnes bulk freight p.a.In the spirit of a global compromise the Commission accepted the common position although this would mean the inclusion of at least 200 additional bulk-freight ports in the trans-European inland waterway component of the network.Amendment 6 (Annex I, section 4)The Commission did not want for the time being to change the legend of the maps so to also show inland ports which fulfil functions of seaports or which handle bulk freight. It is of the opinion that such indications on the maps should be considered in the course of the general revision of the guidelines.d) Amendments not accepted by the Commission and not included in the common positionAmendment (N°1) in so far as it is rejecting the idea of a White paper on the revision of the TEN guidelines, and stipulating strategic environmental impact assessments for ports and intermodal terminals.Amendment (N°4) which includes too restrictive selection criteria for seaports (link with TEN-route, increase of minimum freight threshold).Amendment (N°6) adding additional inland waterway links to the network schemes in Annex I.Amendments (N°8, 9) which provide too extensive a definition of port infrastructure.Amendments (N° 8, 11) seeking to introduce the notion of port superstructure.The Commission's reasons for the rejection of these amendments, were already given in the Commission document on the follow-up to the Parliament's opinion (doc. SP (1999)1454) and need not to be recapitulated in this context.3.3. Provisions proposed by the Commission but not taken up by the Council in its common positionIn the light of the intermodal objective of the TEN guidelines, the Commission proposed to clarify and reinforce the position, not only of seaports and inland ports, but also of the intermodal terminals. Intermodal terminals are a pre-condition for the interchange between different modes, in particular rail and road, and as such fulfil similar functions in the network as the seaports on the coast. The Commission therefore proposed to complement the combined transport network as specified in the TEN guidelines by rail/road terminals which are equipped with transhipment equipment to handle intermodal units and which show a clear evidence of traffic potential.  On this basis the Commission identified in its proposal some 210 intermodal terminals.In its explanatory statement to the legislative proposal (doc. PE 229.595/fin) the EP welcomed expressly the Commission's concept: "Including inland ports and intermodal terminals is sensible since seaports and interconnection points in the hinterland affect each other and are also a significant factor in developing intermodal transport." (p.15)The Council decided not to take up the amendments proposed by the Commission regarding the intermodal terminals.The Commission therefore made the following statement to the minutes of the Council:"The Commission notes the unanimous agreement of the Council on a common position.  It regrets that this common position does not include the part of the proposal dealing with intermodal terminals, given the importance attached to the development of combined transport and in view of the support that Parliament has given to this point at the first reading. It therefore reserves the right to come back to this aspect during the second reading".4. ConclusionsThe Commission agrees to the common position insofar as it builds on the underlying idea of the Commission proposal, in particular with regard to the provisions on the seaports. The Commission maintains however its proposal regarding the part on intermodal terminals which has also been supported by the European Parliament but which was not included in the common position.