Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Trans-European Networks: 1999 Annual Report pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial assistance in the field of Trans-European Networks"
Date: 2001-04-04
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU aid, financial aid, trans-European network

C 253/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.9.2001

interpretation is required to ensure mariners can have a more
simplified and straightforward legal environment
to take
effective decisions when navigating in European Waters.

4. Conclusions

The CoR fully supports the proposed role of the
4.1.
Committee on Safe Seas. However, it urges the Commission
and the Member States to focus on the practical implemen-
tation of legislation in the shipping industry if the negative
impact of future maritime incidents is to be limited.

4.2.
The CoR has consistently viewed the issues of maritime
safety and marine environmental protection in an integrated

manner and believes that it is essential to treat this proposal
with a holistic approach.

4.3.
Conscious of the international dimension of shipping,
the CoR is keen to ensure that the implications of change
within European practice do not force problems of shipping
offshore, creating negative impacts elsewhere in the world.
The European Commission should continue to work actively
with its Member States and the International Maritime Organis-
ation on this issue.

As a representative body of local and regional auth-
4.4.
orities, the CoR looks forward to a simplified and coherent
maritime policy at the EU level which should contribute to a
reduction in unnecessary accidents in the future.

Brussels, 4 April 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Report from the Commission to the Council,
the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
— Trans-European Networks: 1999 Annual Report pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation 2236/95
laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial assistance in the field of
Trans-European Networks’

(2001/C 253/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Trans-European Networks: 1999 Annual
Report, pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting
of Community financial assistance in the field of Trans-European Networks (COM(2000) 591 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 22 September 2000, under the first
paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee
on the matter;

having regard to the decision of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of 13 June 2000 to instruct
Commission 3 for Trans-European Networks, Transport and the Information Society to draw up the
relevant opinion;

having regard to its opinion of 11 March 1999 on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
on Intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the European Union: a systems approach to freight
transport. Strategies and actions to enhance efficiency, services and sustainability (COM(97) 243 final
— CdR 398/98 fin) (1);

(1) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 21.

12.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 253/5

having regard to its opinion of 3 June 1999 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) (CdR 60/99 fin) (1);

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Title XV on ‘Trans-European Networks’
and Title XVII on Economic and Social Cohesion of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the
granting of Community financial aid in the field of Trans-European Networks;

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of 19 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95
laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of Trans-European
Networks;

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 report of the European Parliament on Trans-European transport networks (A5-
0076/2000) and its resolution of 4 May 2000 (2);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 3 on 7 February 2001 (CdR 408/2000 rev.)
(rapporteur: Mr Lebrun, B-PPE);

whereas trans-European network policy has crucial implications for competitiveness, economic and social
cohesion and sustainable mobility at both Community and regional level,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 38th plenary session of 4 and 5 April 2001 (meeting
of 4 April).

VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS

1. General comments and sector-by-sector analysis

1.1.
The Committee is pleased to note that in requesting
the present opinion from the Committee of the Regions, the
European Commission is keeping abreast of the proposals and
interests of regional and local authorities in the sphere of
trans-European networks.

1.2.
In consequence, the present opinion must be more
than a ‘snap-shot’ of the state of trans-European networks in
1999. The Committee of the Regions intends to reaffirm its
stance on the subject, more specifically with a view to the
forthcoming publication of the Commission’s report on the
revision of the guidelines for the trans-European transport
network.

1.3.
The report which is the subject of the present opinion
deals primarily with the transport sector and to a lesser extent
with the energy and telecommunications networks. This
imbalance is probably due to more advanced privatisation in
the latter two sectors and the resulting lower public finance
requirements.

1.4.
The Commission cannot, however, mask the signifi-
cance of TENs development for these two sectors. In particular,
the Community’s contribution to funding energy distribution
and telecommunications networks in the EU’s rural areas
should be increased, especially in the remote and outermost
regions and, generally, in regions lagging behind in develop-
ment.

1.5.
In the same connection, the Committee would question
the effectiveness of the Energy Guidelines Committee which,
inexplicably, did not meet in 1999.

2. Progress achieved on specific projects

2.1. Most of the projects of common interest continued to
make satisfactory progress, especially the 14 specific trans-
European transport network projects identified by the Essen
European Council. This appreciation is based on the recorded
shift from feasibility studies to direct grants in 1999 Com-
munity funding for TEN-transport (more projects having now
entered the construction phase).

(1) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 9.
(2) OJ C 41, 7.2.2001, p. 27.

It should be noted that the share of feasibility studies
2.2.
stood at 28 % for 1999, meaning that the European Parlia-
ment’s recommendation of the previous year has been taken

C 253/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.9.2001

on board (the Parliament had called for this share to be
brought down progressively to a 30 % ceiling).

2.3.
In contrast, in 1999 the Commission continued to
concentrate most of its available TEN-transport resources on
the 14 specific Essen projects (58 %), although the European
Parliament had called for commitment appropriations for
these projects not to exceed 50 %.

In order to extend the effect of this measure, the Committee of
the Regions proposes that TEN projects receive additional
resources if they contribute significantly to the initial TEN
objectives (growth, competitiveness, employment, cohesion or
sustainable mobility). It would therefore seem reasonable to
increase the grant level to 20 % of the total investment cost in
cases where the Union has particularly important interests at
stake (in connection, for example, with ‘missing’ or ‘overheated
links’). One priority should be transport links to the applicant
countries.

3.

Financing the TENs

Two very positive factors intervened in 1999 regarding

3.1.
TENs financing:

— the substantial increase in the budget package for the
period 2000-2006 (EUR 4.6 billion, double the amount
for the 1995-1999 period);

— the revision of Regulation (EC) No 2236/95: the benefits
will
include the possibility of establishing indicative
multiannual programmes and investing in risk-capital
funds, changes which will help boost private sector
involvement, the development of public-private partner-
ship projects, and long-term financing.

Forthcoming annual reports should assess the effectiveness
including for current multiannual
of these new measures,
programmes, as provided by the amended Article 16 of the
new financial regulation.

Multiannual programming should significantly enhance TENs
funding. It is also important for the Commission to take
account of how local and regional authorities are to be
consulted as part of this process.

3.2.
It might be worth recalling that EU budget resources
are clearly not commensurate with the requirements and
challenges involved in creating a TEN-transport (on average,
3 % of the total investment costs).

It is unfortunate, in this regard, that the 1999 report does not
indicate the sources of non-Community funding represented
by national, regional or local public sector finance, or from
the private sector. In order to fill this gap, it would be helpful
to publish more detailed finance plans, beginning with the
14 Essen priority projects.

4. TEN-transport funding allocation by mode: towards

a sustainable transport policy

A sustainable transport policy must be based on the
4.1.
life-friendly modes of
most environment- and quality of
transport. The bulk of Community expenditure, however, is
still directed to rail (64 %) and road (17 %), a preference which
is also reflected in Cohesion Fund financing. In contrast, the
share of
the TEN-transport budget earmarked for water
transport remains negligible (4 % for inland waterways and
1 % for sea/ports).

Where it is possible, however, water transport offers definite
advantages in both cost and environmental terms.

The Committee of the Regions therefore calls upon the
4.2.
Member States to devote more sustained attention to this
mode of transport, and to facilitate the creation of high-quality
projects for water transport, particularly regarding the ‘missing
links’ and autonomous ports.

It would also be in the interests of sustainable mobility for
the profitability of the different modes to be calculated in a
way which reflects environmental costs (internalisation of
external costs), thereby making the less polluting transport
modes more competitive. From this point of view,
the
Committee of the Regions calls for the use of revenue from
motorway tolls to finance initiatives designed to enhance
environmental quality in the transport sector to be allowed
(cross-financing).

5.

Intermodal transport chains

3.3.
In revising the TEN financial regulation, improvements
have been introduced for satellite navigation systems (the
Community support level rising from 10 % to 20 %), and for
the Galileo project in particular.

5.1.
The 1999 report provides little detail on issues and
initiatives in developing intermodal transport chains. TEN-
transport must, however, be rooted in an integrated multimod-
al approach (and not simply the juxtaposition of single-mode
networks).

12.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 253/7

This means that the Member States, or where they are

5.2.
not able, the Community, should:

7. Evaluation and planning of TEN actions

— ensure effective coordination in the development of the
‘integrated

various networks, under the umbrella of
intermodal strategies’ as defined in the ESDP;

— organise the hierarchy (priority corridors) and func-
tionality of the network and all its constituent parts (links,
interconnection points and corridors);

— develop appropriate intermodal connections,

in turn
requiring availability of transshipment and loading points
across the entire EU;

— press ahead with measures for interoperability, a sphere
in which the Commission and the Member States have
made notable progress.

6. A proper balance between competitiveness and
accessibility (as a keystone of economic and social
cohesion), and the particular nature of sub-regional
problems

TEN-T ought

6.1.
to correspond more closely to the
purpose assigned to it in the Treaty (according to which it
should be an instrument
for both competitiveness and
cohesion). It must therefore firstly guarantee sufficient accessi-
bility for all areas of the EU, including island, landlocked and
peripheral regions, and secondly, have sufficient capacity
where demand is highly concentrated. This also applies in
particular to heavily used transit areas.

6.2.
If this objective is to be met, the focus should shift to
the specific characteristics of island, landlocked and peripheral
regions, developing their ports and connecting them to long-
distance rail routes. An ‘interregional accessibility map’ should
also be created, which would 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.

6.3.
In general, the particular characteristics of the various
sub-regions must be taken into account in the recommended
balance between competitiveness and accessibility.

7.1.
The TEN-T guidelines only make sense insofar as
they effectively help to boost competitiveness, cohesion and
employment. It is therefore crucial to measure their practical
effects. To this end, the Committee of the Regions proposes to
flesh out the design and preparation of indicators and evalu-
ation methods by means of horizontal R&D measures.

In any case, Article 16 of the new financial regulation
7.2.
requires the annual report to contain an evaluation of the
results achieved with Community aid in different fields of
application, in terms of the original objectives.

7.3.
The present report does contain a section on evalu-
ation, but it essentially consists of a list of prior documents
with no further details on their contents.

7.4.
It is also important to ensure continuity in planning
TEN actions (retaining a 10 to 15 year perspective). It is
consequently inconceivable that the new guidelines should be
adopted only for a four-year period (from 2006 to 2010, the
initial cut-off date). This objective is, however, met under the
new indicative multiannual programming structure.

7.5.
Lastly, the way priorities are determined should be
subject to pre-established rules known to all, as part of a
rigorous and transparent approach to planning.

8. Enlargement and external relations

8.1.
Connections with third countries are vital, both to
reduce the structural obstacles to future EU enlargements and
to embed the EU networks more firmly within world transport
systems.

8.2.
This aim should certainly be met with the creation of
the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA).
ISPA will be responsible for financing major transport infra-
structure works in the applicant countries, using its substantial
than
annual budget of EUR 520 million, or more
EUR 3,6 billion for the 2000-2006 period, accounting for
some 75 % of the sum earmarked for intra-Community TEN
projects (EUR 4,6 billion).

6.4. More specifically, according priority to existing infra-
structures may be premature and discriminatory for some
peripheral regions which have fundamental gaps in some basic
infrastructure.

8.3.
This amount seems appropriate, in view of the vital
importance of developing TENs in the applicant countries. Just
how important this is was recently made clear in the Transport
Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) final report, published
in October 1999 (in which the cost of building the network

C 253/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.9.2001

was estimated at some EUR 92 billion). It should be noted that
the report gave priority to the pan-European corridors defined
at Helsinki for the construction of the rail and road elements
of the network.

8.4.
However, it is also vital that Community decisions on
financial assistance for current Member States to build the
trans-European transport network should take account of
particular regional requirements in the light of forthcoming
EU enlargement.

9. The Committee of the Regions’ conclusions and

recommendations

The Committee of the Regions:

9.1.
urges the Commission to continue its work on TENs
policy in the field of transport, but also in the energy and,
most importantly, telecommunications sectors, with special
regard to the concerns expressed at the Lisbon summit;

emphasises the significant

9.2.
increase in Community
TENs funding (both within the Union and in the applicant
countries), which should enable project completion to be
speeded up, and considers it vital that Community decisions
on financial assistance for current Member States to build the
trans-European transport network should take account of

Brussels, 4 April 2001.

particular regional requirements in the light of forthcoming
EU enlargement;

9.3.
welcomes the revision of financial regulation (EC)
No 2236/95, and calls upon the Commission to remain alert
to the forthcoming revision of the Structural and Cohesion
Funds, and to its consequences for the current forms of
Community TENs support;

9.4.
reaffirms its stance with regard to the forthcoming
revision of the European Trans-European Transport Network
guidelines, its first request being that common policy in this
sphere be defined more clearly;

9.5.
believes in particular that the TEN-transport should be
compatible with the objectives of sustainable mobility: this
implies that it should give preference to the most environment-
friendly modes of transport, including water transport, and be
based on an integrated multimodal approach;

also believes that TEN-transport must be more closely
9.6.
aligned with Treaty objectives,
in the light of the balance
between competitiveness and accessibility, and calls upon the
Commission to supplement its future annual reports with an
evaluation which focuses more specifically on these issues;

recalls that the components of TEN-transport must be

9.7.
subject to rigorous evaluation and sequenced planning.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT