Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors"
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, cooperation policy, research body, social dialogue, trans-European network, transport infrastructure

C 85/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Implementation of the
structured social dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors’

(2003/C 85/04)

On 2 March 2000 the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) decided, under Rule 23(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, to draw up an additional opinion on the ‘Implementation of the structured social
dialogue in the pan-European transport corridors’.

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 15 November 2002. The
rapporteurs were Mr von Schwerin, followed by Ms Alleweldt (1).

At its 395th plenary session (meeting of 11 December 2002) the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion with 94 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Purpose of the EESC initiative

2. Summary of the EESC’s activities and conclusions

Following the own-initiative opinion (2) on the
1.1.
implementation of the structured social dialogue in the pan-
European transport corridors adopted in March 2000 on the
basis of principle 10 of the Helsinki Declaration (3) — and the
activities that have sprung from it — EESC decided to continue
with its work and set up a permanent study group.

The first meeting with a public debate took place on
2.1.
26 October 2002 and concluded that there were considerable
shortcomings in the implementation of a genuinely integrated
transport policy.

It was noted that there was a need for action in the following
areas:

This decision was taken not only because of the success
1.2.
and impact of cooperation between the EESC and socio-
economic representatives from the central and eastern Euro-
pean countries (CEEC), but also because of a particular
difficulty that has given repeated cause for concern. Despite
the fact that governments and European institutions have
committed themselves to consulting socio-economic groups
on the development of transport policy, there is a glaring
disregard for this principle in practice in most CEEC. Problems
of a lack of coordination and transparency at national level are
repeated on the international stage and thus prevent socio-
economic groups from playing an active role in European
integration. The EU institutions and European organisations
are doing too little to counter this deplorable state of affairs.
The EESC would like to take this opportunity to call for more
to be done in this area in future.

The aim of the permanent study group’s work is to
1.3.
ensure that the social partners and environmental and con-
sumer associations are involved in decision-making on future
transport policy and infrastructure investment well before the
final political decisions are taken. This is the main purpose of
the individual activities in the corridors and transport areas.

( 1) Four-yearly Committee renewal.
( 2) OJ C 117, 26.4.2000, p. 12.
( 3) In 1997, representatives of the governments and parliaments of
the European countries and of the institutions of the European
Union agreed in Helsinki on a joint declaration on the develop-
the agreed
ment of pan-European transport policy. One of
principles is consultation of socio-economic groups in transport
policy development (principle 10).

— promotion of regional transport network links;

— improvement of environmental audit;

— enhancement of transport safety;

— creation of a fair competitive environment;

— management of structural changes in connection with

privatisation;

— provision of better infrastructure-planning instruments;

— search for requisite funding;

— increased transparency with regard to information;

— improvement of consultations and social dialogue;

— better coordination of activities at European level,

especially with the Commission.

The EESC has consistently managed to establish better
2.2.
contacts with the government steering committees in the
corridors.
It has also become an established consultative
partner and is involved in particular in the ongoing work in
Corridors IV, X and VII and Corridor IV’s railways steering
committee.

2.3.
Building up these contacts opens up further possibiliti-
es for active involvement in the other steering committees.
Getting actively involved must however be carefully weighed
up against the study group’s operational capabilities and
possibilities.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/17

In response to many requests, the Commission has
2.4.
established a new coordination forum, made up of
the
steering committee chairs and representatives of the European
Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE). The
European Economic and Social Committee will also take part
in this forum.

2.5.
In the next two to three years, further development of
the corridors is to be linked to the revision of the TEN
guidelines. Plans are also afoot for a renewed, broad-based
consultation of transport ministers on the course to be taken
by pan-European transport policy. This would more or less
amount to a follow-up to the Helsinki declaration. In this
context, the EESC’s work plays an important role and should
be drawn on as appropriate.

2.6.
The EESC’s workload has expanded rapidly. The Com-
mittee has proved that, in this field, it can do much promote
social dialogue with socio-economic partners in central and
eastern Europe. It has thereby also established itself as a partner
for the EU institutions and individual governments/ministries.

This role can be further extended, by:

— providing a commitment in the medium term, among
other things by re-establishing a permanent study group
on the promotion of social dialogue in the pan-European
corridors;

— further improving its role in providing contacts, infor-

mation and exchange of experience with players;

— further strengthening the principle of dialogue confer-

ences and on-the-spot activities;

— ensuring committed representation of the EESC, and thus
also of the interests of socio-economic groups, in the
relevant forums and steering committees.

2.7.
The political and economic significance of the rapid
revival of Corridor X (former Yugoslavia), and the considerable
interest still shown by our socio-economic partners in closer
cooperation in Corridor X indicate that the next dialogue
conference should be held there.

pulling back or setting different priorities. Under the Helsinki
declaration (1),
the G-24 transport working group of the
Commission and the OECD is supposed to be responsible for
monitoring.
It did not meet between January 1999 and
March 2001, and the March meeting failed to resolve many
issues in relation to the group’s future. This has created a
certain vacuum, less in the sense that operations as a whole
are on the wane, but more in terms of the need for a
transparent, coordinated and joint approach, as intended by
the Helsinki conference and declaration, the last major political
event.

3.1.2.
At the same time, rather than diminishing, the tasks
and specific problems related to the common transport policy
and economic and social coherence in Europe are on the
increase. Among socio-economic stakeholders in particular,
but also among political decision-makers in CEEC govern-
ments, parliaments and administrations, the Helsinki process
raised expectations of broad support from and enhanced
communication with the appropriate players within the EU.
Such expectations now risk being dashed. The last political
opportunity for consultation was the hearing on the TINA
report, staged jointly by the EESC and the Commission in
March 1999. Regrettably, the final report makes no mention
of this hearing and the joint report on it by the Commission
and the TINA secretariat was never completed. This does
nothing to encourage input from CEEC socio-economic part-
ners.

3.1.3.
For this reason, the study group meeting on 26 Octo-
ber 2000 was combined with an open discussion session. Its
purpose was to target and bring together those who have
taken on key tasks and responsibilities in the overall process.
These include representatives from the Commission,
the
European Parliament (EP), the European Conference of Minis-
ters of Transport
the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), the steering committees
and selected CEEC socio-economic stakeholders with working
ties with the EESC (2). The discussion was designed to initiate
agreement on individual activities and, as far as possible, to lay
down joint priorities for future cooperation in greater detail.
The aim was to make clear, tangible and practical provision
for the launch of further cooperation projects.

(ECMT),

3. Report on activities since March 2000

3.1.

Permanent study group: first meeting and open discussion
session, 26 October 2000

At a time when the EESC is expanding its operations
3.1.1.
and the governments concerned are supporting and coordinat-
ing work in individual transport corridors, other players are

(1) Extract from the Helsinki declaration: ‘We invite the participants
to... consider the need firstly to monitor implementation of the
“means” set out in Section IV of this declaration, and secondly to
evaluate periodically the degree of achievement of the “objectives”
described in Section II, and in this connection request
the
European Union, the European Conference of Ministers of Trans-
port and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
and partners in multilateral and regional initiatives to cooperate
in the aggregation of relevant data, to review progress towards
regional and sectoral goals, and to make proposals for more
effective implementation on the basis of experience’.

(2) The list of participants at the meeting on 26 October 2000 is to
be found in report DI 262/2002 (available in the TEN secretariat).

C 85/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

3.2. Corridor IV

3.3. Corridor III

3.2.1.
Since June 1999, excellent ongoing working relations
have been maintained with the steering committee of Corri-
dor IV governments. The European Economic and Social
Committee regularly takes part in meetings, for instance on
29 September 2000 in Vienna, on 7 and 8 June 2001 in
Bratislava and on 21 and 22 June 2002 in Sofia (see footnote 2,
p. 17).

3.3.1.
In early September 2000, a seminar was held in
Poland — at the instigation of Euronatur and with Mr Lutz
Ribbe in the chair — on issues concerning the liberalisation of
local public transport. The rapporteur Alexander Graf von
Schwerin also attended, and made a contribution. This seminar
provided the impetus for a conference at the intersection of
Corridors III and VI in Katowice, Poland.

3.2.2.
The joint declaration signed at the February 2000
conference in Vidin, Bulgaria and Calafat, Romania, was
forwarded to the office of the special coordinator of the
stability pact for south-eastern Europe, Bodo Hombach, where
it was received with interest. The policy decisions regarding
the construction of the bridge across the Danube have now
been taken and the infrastructure planning is well under way.
Further talks were held in conjunction with the Corridor IV
steering committee meeting on 22 May 2002. The European
Economic and Social Committee reiterated its willingness to
provide political, economic and social decision-makers with
on-the-spot support so that the momentum generated by the
development of the corridor could be of optimum benefit to
the region. This issue was also addressed in talks between the
rapporteur and Commissioner Verheugen, who supports the
Committee’s commitment.

3.2.3.
Corridor IV’s railways steering committee invited the
EESC to attend its meeting on 10 and 11 May 2000 in Athens.
Its purpose was to spell out future cooperation and draw up
proposals for projects. The EESC rapporteur presented a
blueprint setting out specific proposals, which met with broad
(see footnote 2, p. 17). This blueprint was also
approval
discussed with trade union representatives at the railway
section meeting of the European Transport Workers’ Feder-
ation (ETF) on 20 September 2000 in Brussels. A working
group of rail unions from the Corridor IVcountries was set up
in July 2001, and the rapporteur attended its fourth meeting
in Prague in February 2002. Consultations with the rail unions
are now to be held on two issues, namely the improvement of
border crossings and of general information exchange. The
EESC’s mediating role is expressly welcomed, as was made
clear in a letter to the rapporteur.

The EESC’s most recent work in Corridor IV mainly
3.2.4.
involved co-hosting — together with the European Intermodal
Association (EIA) — a round-table discussion on the pro-
motion of intermodal links in the corridors. This event, held
in conjunction with the Danube summit in Constanza on 26
and 27 June 2002, also provided an opportunity for an initial
exchange of views between representatives of Corridor IV’s
railways steering committee and the trade union working
party. The aim is to launch a meaningful discussion leading to
additional practical projects that can also be applied to other
corridors. Further findings and conclusions for the future are
to be found in a separate report (see footnote 2, p. 17).

3.3.2.
The Katowice conference on 19 and 20 March
2001 focused on regional integration around corridors, with
reference to planning and financial problems. Some sixty
representatives of economic and social interest groups took
part. It became clear that regional ties and links to regional
transport networks also had to be included in the work on
the building of corridors. This could further environmental
protection, safety, efficient financial planning and the smooth
running of local public transport (1).

3.4. Corridor X

3.4.1.
Initial contacts with the — at the time still ‘unofficial’
— Corridor X steering committee were established in
June 2000 via cooperation within the Corridor IV steering
committee. Official status came only with the signing of the
memorandum of understanding in spring 2001. The European
Economic and Social Committee took part
in a steering
committee meeting for the first time in Grevena, Greece, on
26 and 27 April 2002 (see footnote 5). The steering committee
is backed by a technical secretariat attached to Aristotle
University, Thessaloniki (AUTh), which produces extensive
studies and maintains the steering committee’s dedicated
website.

3.4.2.
This year, the steering committee will focus on the
issue of border crossings and has set up a working group for
this purpose, which cooperates with DG TREN and DG
Taxation and with the UN-ECE. The European Economic and
Social Committee has been asked to take part in the work.

3.4.3.
The political and economic significance of the rapid
revival of Corridor X, and the considerable interest still shown
by our socio-economic partners in closer cooperation in
Corridor X indicate that the next dialogue conference should
be held there.

(1) See detailed report DI 262/2002 of 11 June 2001 (available in

the TEN secretariat).

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/19

3.5. Corridor V

In Corridor V, cooperation with the Slovenian rail
3.5.1.
company and rail union and the Slovenian transport ministry
started well. A working meeting was held in Ljubljana in
June 2001 which drew up very specific plans for a dialogue
conference in October of the same year. In the event, this came
to nothing because of changes in the political priorities in
Slovenia and EESC budget difficulties.

4.

Future topics for work

4.1.
The permanent study group on the promotion of social
dialogue in the pan-European corridors will continue working
on the following issues:

— The dialogue conferences have been very successful. In
which corridors should further conferences be proposed
and what should the issues and targets be?

Brussels, 11 December 2002.

— The Committee is making of a name for itself in this field.
What further improvements can be made to its PR work
and public impact?

— Contacts with the CEEC socio-economic partners are in
need of improvement. Trade unions are now starting to
engage in wide-ranging cooperation. The other interest
groups in society lack appropriate initiatives. How can
the Committee improve its role as mouthpiece, forum
and mediator?

— The permanent study group’s work covers more than
mere transport policy and is complemented by other
Committee initiatives. What can be done to improve
internal EESC coordination and refine interplay?

— Involvement in the steering committees only makes sense
if there is scope for practical activities. In future, it is
unlikely that the rapporteur and section secretariat will
continue to be able to plan and arrange such activities on
their own. What procedures could be developed for this
work?

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH