Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks" (COM(2001) 545 final — 2001/0226 (COD))
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aid system, balance of payments assistance, cross-border transport, trans-European network, transport infrastructure

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/13

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95 laying down general rules
for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks’

(COM(2001) 545 final — 2001/0226 (COD))

(2002/C 125/04)

On 18 February 2002 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 February 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Kleemann.

At its 389th Plenary Session on 20 and 21 March (meeting of 20 March), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. General comments

1.1. Many factors are responsible for the rise in EU traffic
levels, but the growth in car traffic — both work-related and
private — plays a major part in the use of transport systems.
On the one hand, car traffic levels have risen considerably
because of the need to commute between home and work,
changes in consumer behaviour and the disproportionate
growth in leisure travel. On the other hand, traffic density has
increased considerably over the past few years, owing to
heavy goods vehicles in certain regions and conurbations.
Globalisation of the economy, the increased functioning of the
internal market, changes in production methods and the
logistics associated with this contribute, among other things,
to changes in the structure of the economy and inevitably
generate increased traffic across all transport modes. With the
accession of the applicant countries this will increasingly affect
cross-border routes which, according to the Commission, are
also currently the weakest points.

2. Specific comments

territory

2.2.
Even in the case of cross-border rail projects on
infrastructure
Community
involving necessary
measures, such as building tunnels or bridges, the ESC thinks
that their sustainability and economic and social viability
should be assessed in all cases.

2.3.
The ESC agrees with the new Article 5(3)(a). The rail
networks of the applicant countries already fail
to meet
therefore
economic needs and capacity bottlenecks will
increase very rapidly given the anticipated economic growth.
We would particularly point out that the Community provides
alternative funding options (e.g. ISPA, TINA) for the applicant
countries, though it must be ensured that these are coordinated
with the guidelines.

2.4. With regard to funding for the inland waterway
network, the Commission is asked to list in a document all
types of funding for transport networks within and outside the
Community, especially in the applicant countries.

2.5.
Article 5(3)(b) should cover all other projects (road,
terminals, air and water, pipelines, etc.) relating to bottlenecks
at borders. It would be helpful if the amendment were more
specific.

Current capacity, especially on cross-border routes, is inad-
equate.

2.6.

Article 5(3)(c) is to be endorsed.

2.1.
The ESC therefore agrees with the Commission that
additional financial resources are needed for the most urgent
improvements in cross-border transport infrastructure, not
just within the Community, but also with the applicant
countries through other programmes. Given the anticipated
volumes of traffic, the question of expanding infrastructure —
including rail infrastructure — within the applicant countries
(to meet EU standards) should also be addressed during the
accession negotiations.

3. Conclusions

The ESC supports the possibility of increasing the
3.1.
ceiling for financial aid from 10 % to 20 % of total investment
costs for cross-border transport projects and for projects that

C 125/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

make a major contribution to the objectives of the trans-
European networks, and it hopes that the goals set are thus
achieved more quickly.

3.2.
In an own-initiative opinion the Committee is urging
that Community financial involvement in projects to improve
and extend the inland waterway network be stepped

up (1). Community support for the elimination of bottlenecks
is also to be doubled (from 10 % to 20 %). Such an increase
should on no account be allowed to affect the increase in
Community grants for the TENs.

(1) OJ C 80 of 3.4.2002, ‘The future of the trans-European inland
waterway network’ is currently being drawn up by the ESC.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the
introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports’

(COM(2001) 695 final — 2001/0282 (COD))

(2002/C 125/05)

On 29 January 2002 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Union, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 26 February 2002. The
rapporteur was Mr Green.

At its 389th Plenary Session of 20 and 21 March 2002 (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes in favour with one abstention.

1. Background

1.1.
At the Council meeting in Luxembourg on 16 October
2001 the Transport Ministers noted that the resolution on
environmental protection adopted by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO)’s 33rd assembly (25 September
— 5 October 2001) opens up a prospect of replacing the
‘Hushkits’ Regulation in the near future.

1.3.
In March 2000 the United States lodged a complaint
in the ICAO Council against the fifteen EU Member States on
the grounds that this Regulation was an infringement of the
Chicago Convention and Annex 16 thereto.

1.4.
The 1999 regulation was challenged by the United
States, which claimed that it breached international agreements
on aircraft noise and would disrupt the market for used
aircraft.

1.2.
To combat aircraft noise around airports, the EU
proposed a Regulation in 1999, which would ban aircraft
equipped with noise reduction devices (‘Hushkits’) from EU
airports from 1 April 2002. Only hushkitted aircrafts registered
outside the EU but operating there before 1 April 1999, would
be allowed to continue.

The Council’s conclusions also took note of

1.5.
the
Commission’s intention of presenting as speedily as possible a
proposal which, in compliance with ICAO conditions, can
establish a framework for operational restrictions in the
Community, making full use of the flexibility provided by the
ICAO, and which protects people living around airports.