Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks"
Date: 2002-05-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: energy policy, energy transport, sustainable development, trans-European network

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/35

29.
The Committee of the Regions stresses the importance
of the exchange of information between Member States in the
case of unintentional transboundary movements. To the extent
that food safety is concerned here, the Committee of the
Regions proposes that the early warning system be integrated
into the procedure. The Committee of the Regions calls on the
Commission to ensure that suitable procedures are established
by each of the Member States.
30.
The Committee of the Regions notes that the proposal
for a Regulation does not tackle the issue of legal liability in
the event of withdrawal arising from an unintentional move-
ment of GMOs, so as to provide the food chain players with
legal certainty.
31.
The Committee of the Regions endorses the conclusions
of the Lisbon European Summit which aim to turn the EU into
an area of knowledge and competitivity based in particular

on biotechnologies. The CoR would like to see greater
consideration given to food safety in world trade while
maintaining the overall competitiveness of the EU’s regions in
the trading of agri-food products.

Conclusion

32.
The Committee of the Regions feels that the introduc-
tion and implementation, at Community level, of the two draft
Regulations will enhance both the quality and the safety of EU
products and provide purchasers (users and consumers) with
more information in order to enable them to exercise freedom
of choice. The Committee of the Regions calls for the extension
of this requirement beyond the borders of the Community.

Brussels, 16 May 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of
guidelines for trans-European energy networks’

(2002/C 278/11)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the guidelines for
Trans-European Energy Networks in the period 1996-2001;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council
on European Energy Infrastructure;

having regard to the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks
(COM(2001) 775 final);

having regard to the decision of its President of 8 April to appoint Mauro Pili, President of the
Autonomous Region of Sardinia (I/EPP), as Rapporteur-General responsible for drafting an opinion on
this matter, in accordance with Rule 40(2) of the Rules of Procedure;

having regard to Articles 154, 155, 156, 158 and 265 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, in particular
Article 154(2) which stipulates that Community action must ‘... take account in particular of the need to
link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions’;

C 278/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

having regard to Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 June 1996
laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks;

having regard to Decision No 1047/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May
1997 amending Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy
networks;

having regard to Decision No 1741/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 July
1999 amending Decision No 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy
networks;

having regard to Commission Decision No 761/2000/EC of 16 November 2000 setting out the
specifications for projects of common interest identified in respect of trans-European energy networks by
Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Decisions of the
European Parliament and of the Council Nos 1047/96/EC and 1741/1999/EC;

having regard to Council Decision No 96/391/EC of 28 March 1996 laying down a series of measures
aimed at creating a more favourable context for the development of trans-European networks in the
energy sector;

having regard to Commission Recommendation 1999/28/EC of 14 December 1998 on improving the
authorisation procedures for trans-European energy networks;

having regard to Council 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, as amended by
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of 19 July 1999;

having regard to European Parliament and Council Directives 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 and 98/
30/EC of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas;

having regard to the European Commission Green Paper on Towards a European strategy for the security
of energy supply (COM(2000) 769 final);

having regard to the Conclusions of the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001;

having regard to the Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002,

adopted the following opinion at its 44th plenary session of 15 and 16 May 2002 (meeting of 16 May).

1. General comments

1.1.
The Committee of the Regions broadly welcomes the
initiative of the Parliament and the Council to draw up a series
of new guidelines on trans-European energy networks.

In particular, it endorses the need to revise the guidelines on
trans-European energy networks (TEN-Energy)
taking into
account the developments since 1996 (implementation of the
directives on the liberalisation of the electricity and natural
increase in dependence on external supplies,
gas markets,
establishment of more ambitious objectives concerning the
market penetration of renewables).

1.2.
The Committee also endorses the proposal to identify
a distinct category of priority projects among the projects of
common interest. These priority projects will have the poten-
tial to impact significantly upon the key objectives of energy
policy, i.e. the establishment of a competitive internal market
and strengthening security of supply.

1.3.
The Committee welcomes the proposal to rearrange
the policy priorities in order that the key policy criteria
regarding TEN-Energy effectively reflect the current needs of
the network, by introducing alongside the political priorities
on the security of supply, enlargement and cohesion (interop-
erability of electricity networks, development of infrastructure
in the gas sector and linking outlying regions with the
development of ultra-peripheral regions) two new political
priorities: implementation of measures to support the creation
of an internal market, and connecting renewable energy
production to the interconnected energy networks.

In specific terms, the proposal to rearrange the policy
1.4.
priorities highlights the direct contribution which TEN-Energy
can make to the development of energy policy and to policies
fostering sustainable development, regional development and
enlargement.

1.5.
The Committee has already expressed its views on the
regional development aspects, highlighting that the priorities

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/37

defined by the European Commission should apply to island
regions as well as ultra-peripheral regions.

1.6.
The Committee endorses the need to identify priority
axes and welcomes the proposal to give a broader definition
to projects of common interest specifying, on the basis of
appropriate assessments, a set number of thematic projects of
particular strategic value, replacing the current 90 (1). This will
enable a greater degree of flexibility and a more balanced
implementation of the TEN-Energy policy and programme.

2. Comments on the priorities

2.3.
It would seem logical to suggest that the level of
contributions given should also depend upon the need for
intervention in areas which, as well as facing significant energy
shortages, also have a population density and distribution
which renders provision of infrastructure particularly problem-
atic.

Where population distribution is especially thin, or in areas
presenting particular geographic problems — these conditions
constituting a clear obstacle to an economic management of
energy policy — the granting of aid could restore the basic
conditions of competitiveness needed to bring these areas on
a more equal footing with those where infrastructure provision
is easier.

The comments put forward in reference to the electricity
networks are even more important considering the content of
the section on natural gas networks.

2.1.
Nonetheless, it is very clear that the identification of
priority axes, as laid down in the text and detailed in the
respective appendix, has led to geographical and strategic
choices that are rather more prescriptive than was warranted
by the need to propose modifications to the relevant docu-
ments.

2.4.
The strategic choices adopted during the general
planning session could also, usefully, refer to relatively specific
geographic locations, provided they are adopted on the basis
of detailed justifications, thorough economic assessments and
are instigated by the Member States themselves.

The Committee considers that the criteria and strategies
adopted by the European Commission should be identified, in
particular those determining the list of priority projects. In this
context, the Committee thinks that the Commission should
clearly identify the peripheral and isolated situation of a region
as a principal criterion when selecting priority projects.

Concerning the priority axes for the electricity net-
2.2.
works,
the Commission undertakes to select five priority
projects but then puts forward seven (2), and these seven
projects appear to be neither in any specific order nor part of
an economic strategy, although they identify geographically-
specific interconnections.

These decisions are extremely important, both politically and
economically, and therefore must be the result of a detailed
and consensual procedure.

The report shows the need to further develop natural
2.5.
gas pipelines in view of a constant increase in consumption by
Member States. This process is one of the main planks of
Community energy policy. This issue, however, must be
tackled with the international situation in mind, which is by
all accounts complex and often difficult to interpret.

2.6.
By laying down the mechanism to identify the priority
axes (which, as pointed out earlier, demands further clarifi-
cation) the document effectively maps out the future lines of
Community energy supply in a way which makes clear,
alternative choices to those put forward by the Member States.

When deciding on the priority axes and especially in applying
them to the proposed priority projects which will receive
maximum levels of funding, the Committee emphasises the
need for a clearer identification of the structural and strategic
nature of the support. To this end, the Committee considers
that it is strategically important for the Union to ensure a
balance in capacity to diversify sources of energy supply,
respect for internal cohesion — especially regarding outlying
regions isolated from the rest of
the continent — and
economically-sound projects.

2.7.
In the light of the previous considerations, there is a
clear need to redress the balance between the major importance
of the decisions adopted and the method of assessment used
to reach them.

Firstly, it should be noted that such decisions need a more
substantive justification and must be coherent with the
indications given in the report (3).

( 1) See point 4 II of the Explanatory memorandum
( 2) See footnote 1 and Article 6a(2) of the proposal for a decision.

(3) Cf. the incoherence between the indicative map of gas supply
projects for Europe and the map in Appendix II on the specifi-
cations of projects of common interest: natural gas.

C 278/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

The axes and projects of common interest should have a
strategic value in the general interest of the European energy
system. Such decisions should therefore be reached only after
having compared alternative proposals listed in the report or
in the proposal for a decision.

3.2.
The most important and substantial improvement of
current operating conditions can only be obtained by improv-
ing and increasing the involvement of local authorities in
general
in the
(and of regional authorities in particular)
decision-making process, both when adopting the strategic
choices and when defining project specifications.

2.8.
Therefore the Committee considers it necessary to
carefully assess the outcome of the considerations on the
feasibility of projects before any subdivision between common
and priority projects can reasonably be made.

The decisions taken on this matter must be consensual and
must take into account the relative merits of proposals put
forward by the Member States referred to.

the proposals and scenarios put
Further consideration of
forward by the Member States is vital to ensure proper
planning which takes into due account the need to redress the
balance of energy infrastructure as set out in the strategic
policies in support of economic development pursued by
individual Member States.

In this respect it is essential to bear in mind the stance taken
by the Member States in supporting and promoting initiatives
in their interest. In some significant cases, they may already
have made specific financial commitments or taken appropri-
ate procedural steps.

3.3.
Over and above the need to provide for the involve-
ment of a CoR representative in the work of the TEN — Energy
Committee, it should be a matter of priority to involve local
authorities in identifying and defining projects for intervention,
with particular reference to the criteria determining environ-
mental sustainability.

3.4.
The Committee recommends the adoption of specific
decisions coupling the promotion and support of projects in
the interest of the Union with the participation and involve-
ment of regional and local authorities.

3.5.
The Committee also recommends the adoption of
specific decisions aimed at encouraging initiatives of regional
and local interest that have a high environmental value, such
as the introduction of renewables in a variety of forms and
projects promoting the co-generation of heat and electricity.

3. Comments on the role of regional and local auth-

orities

4. Comments on the role of energy policy in respect of

third countries

3.1.
‘the
According to the explanatory memorandum,
measures in force concerning information and consultations
with the public in the framework of Community environmen-
tal legislation will be respected.’ (1) This duty of Community
action must be underscored more strongly when addressing
the key issue of
the balance between developing energy
networks and environmental sustainability.

4.1.
The document and the Decision on several occasions
rightly raise the problem of the strategic role of energy
infrastructure in the Union’s ongoing eastward enlargement. It
is important to emphasise the need to diversify sources of
energy. This diversification process must take into account
two areas of extreme political and economic importance: the
Balkans and the Mediterranean.

In several places the report states that concerns over environ-
mental matters have contributed to the stalling and even
definitive abandon of projects (2).

( 1) See point 1.
( 2) Cf. the increase in capacity for trade in electricity between Spain

and France.

term,

In the short

4.2.
the Balkans should provide a
revolving platform for the European Union, able to connect
EU Member States to the energy reserves in the Caspian Sea
via the Adriatic and the Black Sea. This could foster the
development of a system of infrastructure, electricity networks
and gas pipelines to improve connections between the south-
eastern and central-eastern regions of Europe. Such a system
would also encourage smoother reintegration of the whole
former Yugoslav territory into the European regional context.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/39

4.3.
The Committee also notes the key role the energy
sector plays for the Mediterranean basin, which constitutes a
further geographic, economic and trade area in which the
Union simply cannot fail to develop key infrastructure.

In this context, developing energy infrastructure with a
view to strengthening trade relations between the southern
Mediterranean states and the European Union is important not
only for the evident economic value it represents, but also for
the significant impact it has on strategic international relations.

The Mediterranean basin in particular, but not exclusively,
offers EU Member States trade and development opportunities
such as to warrant the definition of a specific initiative on
‘EuroMed energy’.

5. Recommendations

The Committee calls for the following changes to the proposed
European Parliament and Council Decision amending Decision
1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-
European energy networks.

5.1. Article 4

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 6 to be replaced with the
following text:

‘2.
The Committee referred to in Article 9 shall be
responsible for identifying projects of interest and shall
assess the viability of these projects in cooperation with the
relevant regions, on the basis of the provisions laid down
in Article 6(8), while also considering possible specific
measures adopted by the Member States designed to
promote and cofinance individual projects’.

Brussels, 16 May 2002.

5.2. Article 6a: Reword as follows:

a)

b)

c)

they must have a significant impact on the competitive
operation of the internal market; and/or

they must strengthen security of supply in the Com-
munity, with particular reference to redressing the balance
of the Member States’ import and trade capacity;

they must constitute a precondition for support for the
development of island regions, regions without access to
the networks and ultra-peripheral regions.

‘The Committee referred to in Article 9 shall be respon-
sible for identifying the ten priority projects, five per
sector, from among the projects of common interest, and
shall propose the adoption of the choices made by means
of a Commission decision’.

5.3. Article 9

Reword as follows: ‘1. The Commission shall be assisted by a
Committee, to be called the TEN-Energy Committee composed
of representatives of the Member States and of a representative
of the Committee of the Regions, and chaired by the represen-
tative of the Commission.’

5.4. Article 10

Reword as follows:
‘Every two years the Commission shall
draw up a report on the implementation of this Decision,
which it shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council,
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions’.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE