Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide" (COM(2001) 370 final)
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, EU publication, globalisation, mode of transport, organisation of transport, sustainable development, transport policy, transport user

C 241/168

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘White Paper on European transport
policy for 2010: time to decide’

(COM(2001) 370 final)

(2002/C 241/32)

On 14 September 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the White Paper on European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide.

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 19 June 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr García Alonso.

At its 392nd Plenary Session on 17 and 18 July 2002 (meeting of 18 July) the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 53 votes, with two votes against.

1. General comments

The European Economic and Social Committee notes
1.1.
with interest publication of this White Paper, which seeks to
provide a comprehensive response to the challenges the
sector will face over the coming decade and examines the
interrelationship between transport policy and other Com-
munity policies, specifically the internal market and the
environment. It also creates a frame of reference that takes
account of the likely expansion of the European Union.

1.2.
The Committee supports many of the viewpoints and
proposals put forward in the White Paper. In the interests of
brevity, observations on the latter will thus focus on those
aspects where the EESC takes a different view from the
Commission, and will seek to enrich the debate with a view to
finding the best solutions in a climate of compromise.

1.3.
To ensure a systematic analysis of the White Paper,
this document will start with some general points where the
EESC considers that a constructive contribution is needed. It
will go on to make new constructive comments, following the
structure of the White Paper.

1.4.
In the opinion of the EESC, the main problem with the
White Paper, which is at the heart of most of the suggestions
put forward,
is the excessively uniform treatment of the
problems discussed and the solutions proposed, both on a
territorial and on an economic, social, environmental and
cultural level. The 15-member EU — not to mention the future
Union of 27 members — is not a homogenous area. Situations
and circumstances vary across the fifteen Member States, and
different approaches are thus required wherever possible.

1.5. While the White Paper does recognise the existence of
pronounced regional imbalances across the European Union,
the approach taken and the measures proposed do not take
account of the need to attempt to tailor transport solutions to
the specific characteristics of each country and region, given
that the Union differs in geographical, orographical, territorial,
economic and demographic terms. It is a fact that the problems
of the countries of central Europe are totally different to those
of the outermost and island regions, and that any kind of
uniform approach which seeks to find excessively homogenous
solutions in the field of transport may cause instances of
discrimination and result in harmful consequences for all
countries concerned.

The first observation, which is a critical one, concerns
1.6.
the marked change in direction of this document in relation to
the 1992 White Paper, which was strongly in favour of
attempts to open up the sector to competition and encourage
competitiveness in the interests of furthering the internal
market. The EESC shares the view that public authorities, both
at national and Community levels, have adequate legal powers
to organise and regulate the market to the benefit of operators
and consumers, and to monitor both its operation and
compliance with competition rules. However, it considers that
the measures proposed to shift the balance between modes of
transport must not distort competition. The Committee shares
the view, however, that the principle of ‘regulated competition’
should apply to services of general economic interest, including
the various forms of public transport which, under Article 16
of the Treaty on European Union, occupy an important place
in our common values, and which are essential
to the
promotion of social and territorial cohesion.

This leads to a contradiction between an interventionist
1.7.
and uniform policy favouring certain modes of transport
through various economic and fiscal measures, and support

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/169

for a policy of liberalisation and competition within each
sector. Competition between modes of transport is ‘chan-
nelled’, while full competition is demanded within each
sector. There is no recognition that certain criteria, such as
environmental impact and quality and safety of service, should
apply in all areas.

Secondly, in addition to citizens’ right to travel, the
1.8.
EESC also wishes to emphasise the strategic importance of
goods transport for countries’ development and in supplying
mountainous, isolated or very remote regions or areas with
lower economic potential. It thus calls on the Commission to
ensure that incorporating transport into sustainable develop-
ment policy in general and into the sustainable development
strategy in particular does not, under any circumstances, lead
to a reduction in economic opportunities or in the potential
for harmonious development in such regions; rather, emphasis
should be placed on steering demand towards the most
underused, safest and most environmentally-friendly modes of
transport, with a view to achieving a more balanced modal
distribution.

Thirdly, with regard to the mobility of persons, insuf-
1.9.
ficient account is taken of the role of public transport in
relation to the use of private vehicles in terms of redirecting
demand towards the former, and there is no clearly defined
policy to promote use of the means of transport best suited to
the distance travelled. In this regard, the EESC considers that
attempts must be made to promote alternative means of
transport to private road transport, rather than penalising
either private road transport or buses as a means of public
passenger transport.

1.10.
Fourthly, the White Paper makes the common error
of identifying the external effects of transport with the negative
effects it produces, while ignoring the benefits obtained. In this
regard, it should be emphasised that, apart from the fact that
transport as an activity contributes to the economic and social
growth of a country and enables the market to operate
effectively and efficiently, infrastructure contributes to genuine
convergence and full employment, increasing the productivity
of the private sector, the competitiveness of the service sector
and the mobility of persons and, specifically, domestic and
international tourism.

1.11.
Finally, purportedly for environmental reasons, the
Commission text proposes certain economic measures with
little or no consideration for the ways in which technological
progress and the implementation of stricter rules on emissions

transport. In this connection,

are helping to cushion the environmental impact of different
modes of
the Commission
should make improving energy and transport efficiency a
stated objective of transport policy and action programmes,
and should propose or adopt measures aimed at gradually
increasing the number of more efficient heavy goods vehicles
which consume less fuel and create less pollution, and the use
of alternative fuels (such as biofuels), etc. The Committee
believes that such actions are more effective in reducing
environmental impact than many measures which seek to alter
the modal distribution of the transport system in an arbitrary
fashion.

2. Shifting the balance between modes of transport

the document. But

there is no recognition that

The problem of congestion is one of the central themes
2.1.
of
this
problem really affects only a small part of the territory of the
Community, specifically areas with very high population
density (which is one of the causes of the problem) and those
with a particular environmental impact (such as the Alps and
Pyrenees).
It is thus inappropriate to draw up a general,
uniform transport policy for the Community as a whole, as
has been pointed out on previous occasions. What is really
needed is a specific policy for each of these areas.

2.2.
The White Paper does not explore in sufficient detail
the differences between the various countries of the Union;
rather, it outlines general solutions that heavily penalise the
outermost countries and, within these countries, the ‘remote
areas’ — the ‘edge of the edge’. It fails to suggest any means of
enabling them to become both better integrated in the
Community and more competitive. The EESC proposes that
consideration should be given to economic measures that
might help such areas become more competitive.

2.3.
Secondly, the text fails to make an adequate assessment
or appreciation of the role of the three main traffic-generating
categories — private passenger transport, public passenger
transport and goods transport — in producing congestion. It
must also be recognised that the impact of each is different
across the Community (that of passengers is greater near urban
centres), and that variations in schedules and of a seasonal
nature also occur. Use of the existing infrastructure could thus
be improved by prioritising on the basis of time or space —
aspects which the White Paper refers to only in connection
with gradual charging for the use of infrastructure.

C 241/170

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

Furthermore,

2.4.
the suggested means of shifting the
balance between modes of transport focuses almost exclusively
on increased use of goods transport by rail, yet as the EESC
highlighted recently, (1) the practical problems of multimodal
transport which are at the root of the lack of alternatives to
road transport
(which is able to compete with them on
flexibility in particular, as well as cost) are still without a
satisfactory solution.

the EU and is essential to sea rescue services in the event of
emergency. Although the White Paper makes a passing
reference to the strategic implications of maritime transport,
recognising both its advantages and its role in emissions from
ships,
it fails to suggest any measures in proportion to its
importance since it does not propose any specific measures
that would enable a shift from land to sea transport.

2.5.
The criticism repeatedly, and even unduly levelled at
the road haulage sector (‘breaches of the law (which are) too
common’,
‘precarious financial position of many haulage
companies’, ‘tends to keep prices (of other modes of transport)
in no way helps in the search for a sustainable
down’),
medium-term solution.
it would be more
worthwhile to recognise the efforts and progress made over
recent years in terms of training, professional qualifications,
improvements in management techniques, use of new infor-
mation technologies, etc., and to stress the need to continue
to adopt new measures to eliminate situations like those
described.

In this regard,

The Commission communication on the second rail-
2.6.
way package, entitled ‘Towards an integrated European railway
area’, examines the reasons why the railways have been unable
to respond to the continuing decline in their share of goods
transport. The Committee is currently examining the second
railway package, and will shortly issue an opinion on the
Commission proposals. However,
it supports all measures
aimed at improving the operation of national and international
rail passenger or goods transport, be it through increased
competition between operators or abolition of the numerous
technical and regulatory barriers that currently exist, provided
that this does not lead to a deterioration of existing social
conditions.

As stated in a recent Committee opinion (2), there is
2.7.
also an urgent need to revitalise maritime and river goods
cabotage, with the appropriate investment in infrastructure
and promotion of measures to ensure that the sector is
streamlined and competitive. The Committee thus agrees with
the Commission that such modes of transport must be made
more reliable, efficient and accessible, and supports the
measures proposed in this regard. Likewise,
it wishes to
highlight the fact that the Community fleet is crucial to
ensuring the continuing supply of energy and raw materials in

2.8. With specific regard to maritime cabotage, the EESC
supports the White Paper’s proposed development of ‘motor-
ways of the sea’ as a competitive alternative to the overland
transport of goods, and integrating them into trans-European
networks. Likewise, the proposed regulatory framework for
safety checks for passengers embarking on ships offering
European cruises in order to combat the risk of attacks, similar
to those carried out in air transport, is to be welcomed.

2.9.
The EESC views the need to ensure that Community
know-how is maintained as a further challenge for the coming
decade, and would repeat the proposals it made in its opinion
on the Communication from the Commission on the training
and recruitment of seafarers (3).

available

(airports,

2.10.
Air transport must be seen as a high-quality mode of
transport, associated with long-distance travel and closely
linked with high speed rail services or public passenger
transport services. In this context, the EESC also supports most
of the initiatives proposed in the White Paper on air transport,
and those designed to promote better management of the
combined with
resources
maximum respect for the environment (particularly on emis-
sions and noise) and feels that owing to its specific nature,
market forces must determine its future shape, although the
current regulations for services of general interest (particularly
island or very isolated regions) should be maintained. There is
thus an urgent need to make airspace more efficient and to
increase airport capacity to enable both to absorb the expected
increase in air traffic. The Commission must likewise urge the
Member States to respect planning in their airport zones (4).

airspace)

Finally, on the subject of multimodality the Com-
2.11.
mittee supports both the initiatives set out in the Marco Polo
programme and the inclusion of investment for multimodality
in the trans-European transport networks and Community
regulation of the profession of freight integrator to promote
the latter’s role across the Union.

( 1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 21.
( 2) OJ C 40, 15.2.1999, p. 3.

(3) COM(2001) 188 final.
(4) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002.

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/171

3. Elimination of bottlenecks

3.1.
Although the initiative on trans-European Transport
Networks (TEN-T) was clearly an excellent one, it has fallen far
short of its ambitious objectives. This has been due to their
very long-term nature, the need to reach agreement with
national,
regional and even local authorities in various
countries and, in particular, budgetary limitations at a time of
severe restrictions on public spending to comply with the
Maastricht convergence criteria. In addition, in many instances
the private sector was not offered sufficient opportunities to
become actively involved.

3.2.
Thus, as the White Paper states, any initiative aimed at
spearheading renewed progress on trans-European networks
must tackle these fundamental problems. Although the Com-
mittee supports the strategy for action proposed in the
White Paper, it considers the proposed increase, a maximum
Community contribution of 20 % to cross-border rail projects
which bridge natural barriers, to be adequate. It also believes
that such aid should also be extended to other modes of
transport and that cross-financing for projects of this kind
should only apply in very specific cases, as pointed out in
point 3.4.

3.3.
There appears to be a particularly pressing need to
increase capacity on crossings through the Alps and Pyrenees
using transport formulas that are, as far as possible, completely
should be combined with
environmentally-friendly. This
maximum use of alternative means, such as sea transport of
goods, together with improved safety in new and existing
tunnels. The EESC awaits with interest the proposal which the
Commission intends to submit with a view to improving safety
conditions in tunnels. However, the EESC believes that the
Commission proposal on the construction of a new rail route
to facilitate transport through the Pyrenees is inadequate. This
measure would require a long timeframe for design, social
acceptance and implementation, together with new road access
points to help absorb over the medium term the large increase
in traffic between northern Africa, the Iberian peninsula and
the rest of Europe, and between the Italian and Greek
peninsulas and the rest of Europe.

3.5.
The EESC also believes that there is a need to develop
and implement new and innovative formulas for Community
funding and aid which will enable the trans-European transport
network to be completed more quickly, without imposing new
charges or taxes on road transport which might distort
the conditions of competition between different modes of
transport. In this regard, one suggestion is the creation of a
transport infrastructure fund, funded by each Member State
through a small percentage levied on GDP or the annual
increases therein (which would partly result from this invest-
ment in improving transport infrastructure). The fund could
be used gradually to co-finance transport projects in each
Member State, or could serve as a guarantee and leverage fund
to encourage the involvement of private investors, promoting
the development of public private partnerships (PPPs).

4. Placing users at the heart of transport policy

4.1.
The Committee is somewhat surprised by the inclusion
of road safety issues and the internalisation of costs under the
same heading, since the two issues are not comparable and do
not bear any particular relation to the title of the chapter.

4.2.
On the question of safety, the Committee supports
most of the measures proposed in the White Paper, including
harmonisation of sign-posting, the spread of best practice in
accident prevention and the development of new technologies.
In the interests of subsidiarity, however, it opposes harmonis-
ation in areas such as blood alcohol levels or speed limits. The
Committee would thus propose the use of a Recommendation
adopted jointly by the Council and the European Parliament,
to give national governments some flexibility to decide on the
advisability and timetable of any possible harmonisation.

4.3.
The EESC does, however, support progress in harmon-
isation of the type of penalties in certain areas, such as
maximum speed limits and vehicle immobilisation. In this
regard, the Commission could define a range of offences to
enable Member States to introduce effective penalties where
these are committed.

The Committee has grave reservations concerning the
3.4.
cross-financing arrangements referred to in this chapter of the
White Paper, which are analysed in more detail in the following
chapter. As a general rule, it is opposed to any kind of cross-
subsidy or cross-charging, except in cases which are truly
exceptional by virtue of their scale, for example, routes across
the Alps or other bottlenecks on the main transport links, and
where the countries most directly affected are in agreement.

The Committee considers that with regard to road
4.4.
safety,
insufficient attention is paid to the protection of
pedestrians, and especially cyclists. Attention should be drawn
to the need in many countries for more cycle lanes to
encourage cycling as an alternative form of short-distance or
urban transport.

C 241/172

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

4.5.
The Committee welcomed the recent Commission
communication ‘Towards an integrated European railway
area’ (1), the main objective of which is the continued reform
of the rail sector, which proposed the development of a
common approach to rail safety and the creation of a European
Rail Agency responsible,
for finding common
solutions in the area of safety.

inter alia,

flexibility in implementation — must be applied simul-
taneously to all modes of transport, and not just one or a few.
Likewise, it is particularly important that the electricity used
principally by the rail sector should properly reflect the
taxation and environmental externalities which apply to
alternative modes.

The Committee fully supports

4.6.
the Commission’s
approach to safeguarding the rights of users (information,
complaint procedures, compensation, etc.), such as exist in the
case of air transport, and asks that those rights be extended to
other modes of transport.

4.7.
The Committee supports the view, set out in the
section entitled ‘The facts behind the costs to the user’, that
‘the thrust of Community action should (therefore) be gradually
to replace existing transport system taxes with more effective
instruments for integrating infrastructure costs and external
costs.’

4.8.
It also supports an approach designed to gradually
replace taxes based on a fixed payment system with a
differentiated charging system according to criteria based on
use, area and environmental impact. This would facilitate a
more flexible and adaptable European transport policy, as
called for by the Committee in its initial comments.

4.9.
However, in this regard the Committee would draw
attention to many aspects of the Commission document on
which it has well-founded doubts, or which it considers might
be contrary to the desired objective. These are set out below.

4.9.1.
Nowhere is sufficiently clear reference made to the
need to ensure that the measures proposed are tax and
revenue-neutral. Many of the existing taxes on transport were
designed to meet criteria based strictly on revenue rather than
environmental criteria. There is thus a danger that new charges
which seek to internalise costs could be seen as an addition —
rather than a complement — to existing taxes, allowing tax
receipts to be increased.

4.9.2.
Secondly, any infrastructure payment system estab-
lished at Community level — even one, as the Commission
favours, which allows the Member States a great deal of

( 1) COM(2002) 18 final.

The EESC questions the White Paper’s proposal
4.9.3.
that private vehicles should not be included in charges for
infrastructure use on the grounds that this is a matter for
national or local authorities rather than the Commission, since
this may constitute positive discrimination in favour of the
former. The steady growth in private vehicle traffic has an
obvious impact on driving conditions for commercial traffic,
both at national and intra-Community level, and distorts
conditions of competition. Furthermore, its significant impact
on external effects — accidents, congestion, pollution, emis-
sions of pollutants, etc., — is clear, given that private vehicles
account for 90 % of the total distance travelled by all vehicles
in the EU (but a significantly smaller proportion of the various
pollutants emitted).

Pending publication of the proposal on diesel for
4.9.4.
professional use announced by the Commission, the Com-
mittee favours reducing excise duty on diesel to compensate
for the introduction of the kilometre tax under consideration
by the Commission — otherwise the result will be dual
taxation and a considerable increase in taxes and charges on
HGVs, which will have a negative effect on transport costs.
Furthermore,
to harmonise
the Commission’s proposal
upwards excise duty on diesel would have an extremely
negative impact on those countries where the level of excise
duty is lower than the Community average.

4.9.5.
The Committee is extremely concerned at the poss-
ible creation of so-called ‘surplus revenue’ from infrastructure
infrastructure management is often in private
use. Firstly,
hands, and a system such as that described in the proposal, as
well as being complicated, would also mean complex fiscal
controls over their activities. Secondly, the management of
these ‘captive’ surplus funds would create grave conflicts of
interest between modes of transport and between national,
regional and local authorities.

4.9.6.
It thus believes that any charges for infrastructure
use (over and above tolls, which are paid to the toll operator),
should be entered as current revenue in the budget of the
national or regional government (according to each country),
and the funding of new infrastructure should likewise be

7.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 241/173

completely transparent on the basis of public budgets. The
sole possible exception to this rule, and this on an extraordi-
nary basis, should be certain projects such as routes across the
Alps or Pyrenees, or projects which have a clear Community
dimension and interest involving at least three Member States.

4.10.
The Committee welcomes warmly other proposals
contained in this chapter. The ideas for promoting intermo-
dality for people and the creation of a Charter of rights (and
obligations) for passengers on various modes of transport are
particularly interesting. However, it considers that in addition,
specific measures aimed at improving access and transport
conditions for users with reduced mobility should also be
proposed, and thus urges the Commission to include in its
proposals appropriate measures in this regard, and even to
produce a specific Communication on this matter in the
the 2003 European Year of People with
framework of
Disabilities.

4.11.
Of particular relevance, and in line with the views
expressed repeatedly by the Committee, is the confirmation of
the public service nature of public passenger transport. The
Committee urges the Commission to go further along this
road and take care to avoid measures that may be contradic-
tory, such as the recent proposal for a regulation on public
transport (now amended), of which certain articles of the initial
version hindered and even prevented full implementation of
this principle (1). It thus supports a more flexible system for
notifying State aid for passenger transport companies, under
certain conditions related to public service obligations and
below certain financial thresholds.

4.12. With regard to the question of rationalising urban
transport, the Committee feels that clear priority should be
given to the promotion and exchange of good practice
(especially since this is an issue for local authorities), and thus
would support the creation of a Community programme to
create a formal framework for development of these good
practices and to provide information to European citizens,
without whose support and cooperation they cannot succeed.
It also feels that there is a need for investment and transport
plans to improve the quality of transport in the large congested
conurbations, which should be financed from Community
funds.

( 1) Committee opinion, OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 31.

5. Controlling (organising) the globalisation of transport

5.1.
The Committee is surprised and disappointed at the
negative title of this chapter, particularly since the content of
the chapter does not reflect this cataclysmic vision. The EESC
would have preferred ‘Organising and leading the globalisation
of transport’.

The EESC also feels that it is wrong to include a
5.2.
reference to the issue of enlargement under this section. The
applicant countries could feel excluded from a White Paper
which covers a period extending well beyond their possible
accession date.

5.3. With regard to a transport strategy for the applicant
States, the Committee has made its views known on many
occasions. The main points of the strategy should be as
follows:

— To eliminate bottlenecks at borders between these
countries and with the existing EU Member States.

— To combat unfair competition by road transport, tackling

both social and vehicle safety aspects.

— To combat organisations which engage in the trafficking

of immigrants.

— To promote a framework for competition and competi-
tiveness for their rail systems which enables them to
retain their current share of the haulage market.

— To integrate fully these countries in the Community
multimodal transport network and develop their river
networks.

— To demand rigorous implementation from the moment
of accession, without any kind of transition period, of
Community legislation on maritime safety and port
control.

The Committee feels that international transport policy
5.4.
is an integral part of trade policy and even, in some respects,
the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). It thus
believes that in this area the Commission should have powers
similar to those conferred on it by the Treaties for the
negotiation of
trade agreements. The Com-
mission should have powers to negotiate international trans-
port agreements in order to meet its obligations arising from
secondary legislation and from the jurisdiction of the European
Court of Justice. The Commission, acting on the mandate of
and under the guidance of the Council, should represent the
international
Union on questions of

international

transport

in all

C 241/174

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.10.2002

organisations competent on transport policy issues and should
have the power to negotiate transport agreements with third
countries on behalf of the fifteen Member States.

5.5.
Finally, the Committee welcomes the Barcelona Euro-
pean Council’s recent approval of the Galileo Programme, for

which it has expressed its total and unreserved support on
several occasions. It reiterates its view that this programme is
essential both from a strategic and an industrial perspective,
and as an effective means of developing new technologies to
improve the management of the global transport system.

Brussels, 18 July 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, was defeated in the course of the
debate.

Amendment 3:

Delete point 1.7.

Result of voting

For: 18, against: 26.