Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Revision of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects up to 2004"
Date: 2003-09-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, development plan, trans-European network, transport network

C 10/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Revision of the list of trans-
European network (TEN) projects up to 2004’

(2004/C 10/15)

On 8 April 2003, in a letter from Mr Umberto Vattani, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Italy
to the European Union, the Council asked the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up, in
accordance with Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, an exploratory opinion
on the ‘Revision of the list of Trans-European Network (TEN) projects up to 2004’.

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 4 September 2003. The
rapporteur was Mr Levaux.

At its 402nd plenary session, held on 24 and 25 September 2003 (meeting of 25 September), the
European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 90 votes to 6, with
6 abstentions.

1. Aim of this exploratory opinion

1.4.
Since 1996, several events have occurred and reports
have come out which warrant a review of the TEN-T guidelines.

1.1.
After the Treaty of Maastricht was concluded in 1993,
the Commission put together a comprehensive framework
for developing European networks, aimed at speeding up
completion of the single market, linking outlying regions with
the heart of Europe and opening Europe up to its neighbouring
countries. In Essen in 1994, the heads of state and government
pinpointed 14 priority transport projects. In 1996, the Parlia-
ment and Council adopted a decision setting down more
general Community guidelines for trans-European transport
networks (TEN–T). This decision covered a series of infrastruc-
tures worth EUR 400 thousand million to be completed by
2010, of which EUR 152 thousand million (at 2002 prices)
were earmarked for TEN-Ts. Six years after this decision was
taken, barely 25 % of
the planned projects have been
completed, and at the current rate of investment it will take
20 to 25 years to complete the EU’s network described in the
European master plans.

1.2.
The budgetary resources earmarked by Member States
and the Community are therefore proving to be inadequate
for meeting the objectives. Moreover, public investment in
transport declined from 1,5 % of GDP in the 80’s to less than
1 % in the 90’s. For information, comparative GDP and
construction investment curves, the latter including transport
infrastructure, illustrate this deterioration.

1.3.
The Commission underlines that delays are affecting
border and rail infrastructure projects in particular, i.e. two
key areas of Community policy:

— securing cross-border continuity of networks;

— shifting the expected increase in road freight to other
means of transport (rail, inland waterway and sea trans-
port).

— Firstly, the rate of economic growth envisaged at the
Lisbon Council could by 2010 lead to a 38 % increase in
freight traffic and a 24 % rise in passenger transport,
compared to 1998. For its part, the Commission demon-
strated in its 2001 White Paper entitled ‘European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ that without a
major shift in the balance of traffic, freight transport will
increase by 50 %. The Committee agrees with the
Commission’s analyses of this development and stresses
that, although economic growth today is not in line with
forecasts made a few years ago, this should not in any
way be seen as yet another opportunity to put off action
on decisions already made or to postpone making choices
regarding TEN-T. Deadlines for completing infrastructure
and putting equipment into service are spread over a 10
to 20-year period; thus when growth picks up, it will lead
to traffic gridlock.

— Secondly, as of 2004 the EU is taking on board ten new
countries and it has already announced its intention to
take in other candidate countries over the next few years.
This situation requires account to be taken of the new
Member States’ needs, both to allow them to adjust their
economies to that of the EU and to properly absorb the
inevitable extra traffic. The Commission estimates that
along the corridors linking these new Member States to
the current EU countries, some 20 000 km of roads,
30 000 km of railway lines, sea ports and airports will
either have to be built or improved at a cost approaching
EUR 100 thousand million. The Committee deems it vital
that the Commission include some internal waterways in
its plans, in addition to the Corridor VII Danube project,
for they are particularly suited to the transport infrastruc-
ture of several of the new countries, especially bearing in
mind sustainable development requirements.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/71

For these reasons, in October 2001 the Commission
1.5.
proposed a revision of the guidelines on the trans-European
networks. Towards the end of 2003 it will present a new
proposal to continue the reform of TEN policy:

for trans-European networks. On 23 April 2003, it presented a
communication outlining the innovative financial instruments
and management systems needed to carry out major infrastruc-
ture projects. Section 4 of this opinion examines this com-
munication.

— to link the new Member States’ and the candidate
countries’ networks, particularly in the transport corri-
dors;

— and to step up efforts to select and concentrate on true

European priorities such as:

— removing bottlenecks;

— cross-border projects; and

— the main land and sea routes.

sometimes operate

This will ensure cohesion throughout Europe, while current
TEN-T schemes
alongside national
schemes, which means that Community funds are thinly
spread. The Committee supports this approach, since Com-
munity action on infrastructures does not have to cover the
many needs which have been identified and are particular to
each Member State, but rather must focus on trans-European
priorities, securing the continuity of networks. Since this is a
priority in Europe’s general interest, Europe must shoulder the
lion’s share of the burden of Community infrastructure costs,
above all in those areas which are at a disadvantage due to
their geographical
location, such as those with extensive
mountain regions.

In drawing up its new proposals for TEN-T,

1.6.
Commission set up a study and research mechanism:

the

— It entrusted Mr Karel Van Miert with the task of chairing
a high level group to examine in detail the projects worth
including in an updated list of major priority projects for
the enlarged European Union (1).

— It set up an internal task force to provide the high level
group with support in analysing the one hundred projects
submitted by the Member States, with reference inter alia
to updated traffic forecasts.

1.7.
The Union is on the eve of enlargement. Its budget for
2007-2013 will be difficult to draw up for the Europe of
Twenty-Five, since it will have to set the priorities amongst
the trans-European infrastructure projects. The Commission
therefore felt it necessary to start to reflect on the future of
Community funding, in particular on the budget earmarked

(1) See section 3.

1.8.
The Committee takes the view that the trans-European
transport network constitutes a key element of European
integration, which can be achieved only if there is unimpeded
movement of people and goods. It also points out that it has
long maintained that the essential increase in transport must
take place with due regard to sustainable development prin-
ciples.

Initially, up to the end of June 2003 and pending
1.9.
information on the Van Miert Group’s work which had
hitherto been kept confidential, the Committee:

— took note of the progress made up to the end of 2002
with the 14 Essen priority projects and the six new
projects added in 2001, on the basis of the Commission
document published in February 2003 entitled:
the
trans-European transport network — TEN-T — priority
projects;

— prepared a forecast which indicated an overall implemen-
tation rate of 74 % for the 14 Essen priority projects by
2010;

— examined the methodology adopted by Mr Karel Van
Miert’s group for selecting the new priority projects;

— renewed its proposals for funding these priority projects
by means of a mechanism creating a ‘permanent’ formula
in the EU’s budget, independent of the Member States,
allowing higher subsidies to be granted and guaranteeing
loans. This new mechanism should help the States
concerned and the EU to comply with the implementation
deadlines, since national budgetary constraints would be
eased.

1.10.
Then, by the end of 2003, after publication of the
Van Miert Group’s report, the Commission will prepare its
new proposal for revising the TEN-T policy guidelines, which
will be submitted to the various institutions and bodies in line
with the usual procedures, with a view to obtaining definitive
approval from the European Parliament and the Council in
early 2004. The Committee, while understanding the deadlines
imposed by the Parliamentary elections in early 2004 and the
enlargement to 25 in May 2004, regrets the fact that the
Commission’s cooperation on the matter is somewhat delayed
due to the Commission wanting to keep the Van Miert Group’s
work confidential
(its proposals only being available for
examination during the last few days).

C 10/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

2. The current priority projects: progress and character-

istics

allowing the scale of the EU’s ambitions in this sphere to be
gauged. In 2010, within the Europe of Fifteen, the whole
trans-European transport network, including priority TEN-Ts
projects, should comprise:

The Committee would point out that in 1993, the Commission
published a white paper on transport setting out priorities on
the basis of three master plans; EUR 300 thousand million
were scheduled to be invested by 2010:

— 75 200 km of roads;

— 78 000 km of railways;

— the plan for

roads, scheduling the construction of

17 000 km of motorway;

— 270 international seaports;

— 330 airports;

— the plan for high speed trains, scheduling the construction
of 4 000 km of new line and the upgrading of 3 600 km
of existing line; and

— the plan for inland waterways.

Some of the projects examined in 1993 by the Christopherson
Group and included in the guidelines have been unilaterally
abandoned (Rhine — Rhone link) and are no longer included
in the 14 priority projects adopted in Essen; others have been
changed. There has been some major slippage in terms of
deadlines and costs. In view of this, while it approves of the
Commission’s current steps to update the list, the Committee
would point out that it is counter-productive when Member
States do not honour commitments and when established
priorities are called into question. The simple fact of revising
the list of TEN-T priority projects every five years will not
make it possible to secure effective sustainable development in
Europe, be it in economic and social or environmental terms.
The Committee therefore wishes formally to draw the attention
of the Commission, Parliament and Council to the importance
which decisions on TEN-T will have, particularly regarding
commitments on funding, work start-up and completion dates.
At a time when the EU of Twenty-Five is being established,
with a view to redeploying economic resources and in view of
economic globalisation, we have a unique, historic opportunity
to consolidate what has been achieved to date by providing
Europe with a modern, comprehensive and efficient transport
infrastructure.

2.1. The 14 priority projects adopted in Essen: + six additional

projects

In response to a request made at the Barcelona Council, the
Commission compiled a brochure in February 2003 setting
out what had been achieved under the Essen priority projects.
This brochure, entitled ‘Trans-European Transport Network
TEN-T Priority Projects’, provides the following information,

— 210 inland ports; and

— traffic management systems, user information and navi-

gation services.

The total cost of financing this network was estimated at
EUR 400 thousand million (at 1996 prices), with an average
financing of EUR 19 thousand million per annum; this entails
implementation spread over about twenty years, which is not
compatible with the stated aim of implementation by 2010.
Appendix 1 sets out in table form the twenty (14 + 6) projects
with the key information provided by the Commission, such
as deadlines for completion, total costs and the state of
progress as of September 2002. The table shows up the
following inconsistencies:

2.1.1.
As regards the deadlines, whilst 2010 is taken as the
general reference date for completion of priority projects,
several of these, according to the Commission’s indications,
will only be finished after this date. Thus, the Committee
believes that it would be more realistic and effective to plan
projects which would come into service between 2010 and
2020 (as proposed in the EESC’s January 2002 opinion on
‘The future of the trans-European inland waterway network’
this of course
up to 2020 — CES 24/2002). However,
presupposes that the will exists to do everything possible to
comply with this new deadline and to this end the Committee
suggests that:

— steps be considered for setting up a monitoring body
within the Commission which, together with the Member
States, would take responsibility for coordinating, along
the major routes, the management of the various sections
and the funding from the EIB, EU Member States and PPP,
etc.;

— a mechanism be introduced imposing heavy sanctions on
those states not meeting their obligations. For instance,
the sanctions could be as follows in these cases for any
project which such states put forward as being of priority
importance:

— the state concerned could see part of its control of
the project concerned being taken away from it by
the EU and given to other Member States involved
in the trans-European link;

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/73

— if a state pulls out of a project, European aid for
studies or land purchase might have to be reim-
bursed to the EU by the defaulting state,
thus
preserving the EU’s financial interests;

— as in private contracts, delays in delivering an
infrastructure should be subject to a penalty payable
by the state at fault, like the mechanisms for financial
guarantees of successful completion of work used in
the private sector.

As far as project costs are concerned, the table in
2.1.2.
Appendix 1 shows that overall investments are estimated by
the Commission to be 173,993 thousand million euros
(EUR 173 993 million) for the twenty priority TEN-T projects
decided upon or proposed in 1996 and 2001. In parallel, in
the same document the Commission announces a total cost of
400 thousand million euros (EUR 400 000 million) to which
a
euros
(EUR 100 000 million) is to be added for projects for the new
Member States for all the networks, including these priority
TEN-Ts. In order to clarify the various estimates from 1996
and then 2001, together with those submitted to the Van
Miert Group, the Committee would underline the following:

thousand million

hundred

further

one

— Lists 0 and 1 in the table below set out the remainder of
the TEN-T priority projects decided upon at Essen
together with those added in 2001, the costs of which
increased sharply following the update and a number of
extensions within the corridor where the initial project
was located (e.g., the Danube project, number 2 on
List 1).

Million euros

2004-2020

of which the
following are
for the period
2004-2013

of which the
following are
for the period
2014-2020

List 0

List 1

List 2

List 3 non-priority

80

142

13

22

80

125

3

20

Total

257

228

Excerpt from the Van Miert report — § 6.6.2.

0

17

10

2

29

— the Van Miert Group has set an overall cost package of
EUR 600 thousand million up to 2002 for work outlined
in the trans-European transport network plans (including
the TEN-T priorities and plans for the new Member
States);

— costs of EUR 257 thousand million have been set by the
states for the projects in Lists 0, 1, 2 and 3, which receive
Community subsidies; and

— the Commission has estimated the cost of the networks
to set up in the ten new Member States at EUR 100
thousand million.

The proportion of European subsidies for priority
2.1.3.
TEN-T projects (currently standing at 10 % of a project’s cost,
excluding taxes) provides few incentives. In some cases, the
Commission might envisage raising this to 20 %, but the
Committee feels that for genuine incentives to be provided,
depending on the nature and frontier location of certain
projects, this subsidy should comprise between 20 % and 50 %
of costs, excluding taxes.

3. The working group chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert

The Commission proposal to present new TEN-T guidelines
by 2004 is an ambitious and difficult one because at the same
time it should:

— take into account the consequences of enlargement;

— set up comprehensive networks quickly without missing

links;

— solve the funding problem; and

— change ways of thinking by favouring general European

interests over national ones.

The Committee feels that by setting up a high level group as
the Commission has done, steps to achieve the above will be
made easier.

3.1. Membership of the high level group

Mr Karel Van Miert chaired the group which was comprised of
one representative from each Member State plus one observer
from each country expected to join the EU by 2007 at the
latest,
i.e. the ten accession countries plus Romania and
Bulgaria, together with the European Investment Bank (EIB).
The Commission provided the secretariat for the Group.

3.2. The high level group’s brief

a)

b)

To examine proposals for projects submitted by current
or future Member States for insertion in the lists of
priority projects previously accepted or proposed and
thus to amend the TEN-T guidelines.

To examine projects which are not sponsored by any
country, but which could be of particular trans-European
value.

C 10/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

To compile a restricted list of projects which cover all the
major regions in an enlarged Europe.

d)

Potential economic viability, with impact on the
environment and on economic and social cohesion.

c)

d)

e)

f)

To draw up a method, procedure and timetable for
subsequent updates to the list of priority projects, includ-
ing for the removal or non-implementation of projects
whose launch has been delayed too long, or which have
been subject to major changes affecting their profitability
or feasibility.

To look into means to facilitate and speed up the
implementation of projects on the restricted list.

To decide on the horizontal priorities which should be
covered by the guidelines.

3.2.1.
The Committee approves as a whole the content of
the brief given to the high level group. Nevertheless, it does
not agree with the Commission in respect of the thinking
behind d) concerning the withdrawal of projects, for this is
tantamount to anticipating failures. The same holds true for
any state not meeting its commitments and jeopardising the
general European interest and, in particular, the neighbouring
country concerned in the cross-border project. Wielding a large
EU subsidy, the Commission should, with the Parliament’s and
Council’s support, adopt a more determined approach vis-à-
vis any such Member States, involving binding arrangements,
and set up a body such as a ‘European Agency for Transport
Infrastructure’ with resources for following up and, if necess-
ary, monitoring project implementation, in particular for the
ten new countries, so as to prevent such a problem from
occurring. Moreover, it would point out that it is vital to apply
these penalties (See para. 2.1.1).

3.3. The Van Miert Group’s general criteria for project assessment

These have been divided into two phases:

— Phase 1:

— Phase 2:

e) Assessment of a project in terms of sustainable
development as part of the trans-European network,
in particular its contribution to intermodal transport
options, aimed at encouraging a shift to other forms
of transport (rail, intermodal, maritime and river
transport).

f)

g)

Territorial cohesion in the candidate countries and
major outlying regions.

Beneficial trans-national impact on several states,
with evaluation of European added value in terms
of % of total international traffic.

3.3.1.
criteria are relevant. However, it would stress that:

The Committee believes that the proposed general

— regarding point b), it is an illusion to have commitments
without sanctions against states in the event of the
commitments not being met (see point 2.1.1);

— regarding point d),

the potential economic viability
criterion should not make it possible to eliminate a
project whose completion turns out to be vital. In the
past, this kind of thinking, applied to sections or parts of
networks, has resulted inter alia in missing links, bottle-
necks and a lack of continuity in the network;

— regarding point g) and sustainable development,

the
Committee would stress that the assessment tools based
on a forward study still warrant publication, and precise
objectives still have to be set.

a)

b)

c)

Compliance with the concept of major European
routes, known as ‘corridors’.

Commitment from the Member States concerned to
complete projects with a minimum cost of EUR 500
million in the precise timescale stipulated.

Suitability of projects in relation to European trans-
port policy objectives, particularly as regards bottle-
necks and cross-border links.

The Committee welcomes the fact that point a)
3.3.2.
requires that a project absolutely must fit into a corridor or
structure-promoting European network, where continuity is
assured from one end to another. Thus the Commission, when
compiling its final proposals, will identify a series of structure-
promoting networks which will constitute the main routes for
traffic and transportation in an enlarged EU, in conjunction
with neighbouring countries, in this way securing the conti-
nuity of these networks by making it mandatory to provide or
replace missing links.

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/75

4. Project funding arrangements

On 23 April 2003, the Commission published a communi-
cation entitled: ‘Developing the trans-European transport net-
work: Innovative funding solutions. Interoperability of elec-
tronic toll collection system’; at the same time it issued a
proposal for a directive concerning the more widespread use
and interoperability of electric road toll collection systems in
the Community. The Committee is currently dealing with this
proposal for a directive in a separate opinion (1).

From the outset of the priority TEN-T review procedure, the
Commission had planned to seek solutions for project funding
since this is in fact an unavoidable and key issue. There is
general agreement about the fact that ‘without high-perform-
ance transport networks, economies cannot be competitive’.
However, such agreement is worth nothing if, as can be seen,
‘transport infrastructure is still under-financed, for lack of
adequate funds and the absence of a framework conducive to
investment’.

The Commission sets out the reasons for the stagnation of the
trans-European transport network:

— the lack of political will on the part of the decision-

makers in the Member States;

— the inadequacy of the financial resources dedicated to the

trans-European network; and

— the fragmentation of the entities responsible for the

projects.

The Commission then notes that the share of GDP (less than
1 %) earmarked for completing transport infrastructures has
been constantly on the decline over the last few decades,
while the needs identified and the traffic have actually been
increasing.

The Committee confirms and expresses its concerns about the
above and was therefore most interested to study the solutions
put forward by the Commission, which are based on two main
ideas:

— greater coordination between public and private funding

for trans-European transport networks; and

— back-up from an effective European electric toll collection

service.

The Committee clearly supports the Commission’s aim
4.1.
of achieving greater coordination between regional, national
and Community funding. Again, the Committee feels that the
Commission should, with support
from the EIB, have
additional means available to help certain countries put
financial arrangements into place and overcome the difficulties
inherent in a policy of co-financing infrastructures, where each
party negotiates its involvement in keeping with the interests
it represents and not
the general European interest. The
Committee therefore feels that it is necessary for the EIB to
support a European Transport Infrastructure Agency which
should be set up to optimise the existing funding mechanisms
by strengthening them and better coordinating them.

4.2.
As regards the public-private partnership (PPP), the
Committee agrees with the Commission’s analysis of the
limits of entirely private funding of large-scale infrastructures.
However, mixed financing cannot provide the sole solution,
insofar as private investors quite legitimately require certain
guarantees and profitability from their investments. As a
consequence, costs go up. Moreover, other aspects should be
taken into consideration:

— every priority TEN-T project involving several European
countries should be carried out by setting up a ‘European
company’ legal structure, so as to secure the transparency
necessary for the financial arrangements for the project;

— a PPP can only reasonably be set up where there is a
balance between the financial input from the public and
private sectors. It would be hard to imagine a PPP where
the private sector had only a very small
input. It is
therefore not realistic to envisage the private sector
contributing the necessary funding for carrying out the
majority of projects;

— limits must be set so as to avoid the unforeseen conse-
quences of a gradual abandonment of the sovereign
power traditionally held by Member States or public
authorities in matters pertaining to spatial planning and
major public infrastructures.

(1) Committee opinion being drafted on the ‘Proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the widespread
introduction and interoperability of electronic road toll systems
in the Community — EESC 716/2003’.

As far as the funding of transport infrastructures is concerned,
while PPPs represent an interesting option for certain specific
cases, they in no way constitute a panacea.

C 10/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

4.3. Creating a European Transport Investment Fund

4.3.1. With the exception of the Structural Funds, the EU
does not have sufficient resources available, either in its own
Transport budget or in the various funds allocated to it, to
contribute high subsidies (10 % to 50 % of the cost of
the work involved)
to provide incentives or ensure that
commitments are irreversible. Likewise, the subsidiarity prin-
ciple slows matters down considerably, each state retaining the
possibility of challenging or postponing the commitments
made. Thus the Committee reiterates its suggestion of setting
up a European Transport Investment Fund in the EU budget,
independent of
the
implementation of priority TEN-T projects, which would
receive permanent financing and be managed at Community
level.

the Member States, especially for

4.3.2.
Enlargement is providing the EU with an historic
opportunity to put the finishing touches to the integration
venture, by equipping itself for several decades with sufficient
means to establish the networks for transporting people and
goods that are vital for securing its sustainable development
over the coming decades. Land-use planning in an enlarged
together with the completion of communication
Europe,
infrastructures constitute the priorities for ensuring that atti-
tudes and rules change, undertaking ambitious reforms and, to
this end, accepting the transfer of some responsibilities from
Member States to the EU. The proposed European Transport
Infrastructure Fund would be financed by a very modest
solidarity levy of 1 cent per litre on all fuel consumed on
the EU’s roads by all private and commercial vehicles (see
Appendix 4 — Breakdown of fuel consumption in 2001). As
regards the various ways of solving the transport infrastructure
funding headache, the Committee will set out its views more
comprehensively and in greater detail in a later own-initiative
opinion on future transport infrastructure — financing, plan-
ning, new neighbours.

The Committee notes that twice in 2003 (1) it has
4.3.3.
proposed setting up such a fund as has the European
Parliament. The principal features of the fund proposed by the
Committee should be:

— a European fund dedicated to priority TEN-T projects;

— permanent revenue from ‘one cent’ on every litre of fuel
(petrol, diesel, LPG) consumed in the EU-25 for all road
transport of goods and persons (public or private);

(1) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003, p. 133 — opinion on the alignment of the
excise duties on petrol and diesel fuel — and opinion on safety
requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network.

— collected by the Member States and paid in full every year
into the dedicated fund in the EU budget,
i.e. about
EUR 3 000 million from the 300 million tonnes of fuel
consumed;

— management of fund entrusted to the European Invest-
ment Bank to spend on the priority TEN-Ts proposed by
the Commission and adopted by the Parliament and
Council;

— very long-term loans (30-50 years);

— interest rate subsidies for the loans;

— provision of financial guarantees for PPPs;

— on behalf of the EU, granting of subsidies of 10 to

50 % of the work according to the type of project.

5. Report of the high level group

During the second half of 2003, the Commission will put
forward definitive proposals to the Parliament and the Council,
backing up those made by the group chaired by Mr Van Miert.

The Committee, once it has seen and discussed the Com-
mission’s definitive proposals based on the Van Miert report,
will then complete its comments and suggestions, which will
be incorporated in a more comprehensive own-initiative
opinion on ‘The future of European transport infrastructures’.

6. Conclusions

6.1.
The revision of the list of priority TEN projects up to
2004 is being carried out at the same time as the EU is
increasing from 15 to 25 members. This major historical event
presents a unique opportunity for giving Europe a TEN-T
commensurate with the foreseeable challenges over the coming
decades.

The trans-European transport networks must above all
6.2.
ensure that traffic flows freely. Consequently, absolute priority
must be given to trans-European routes and corridors which
remove bottlenecks and complete missing links. The level of
subsidies must be more attractive,
in particular for cross-
border projects, and must lie between 10 % and 50 % of the
cost of the work (excluding taxes), depending on the type of
project involved.

Existing mechanisms are highly inadequate for placing
6.3.
EU financing of priority TEN-Ts on a more permanent footing.
The Committee is proposing that a European fund specifically
for transport infrastructure be set up in the EU budget, with
permanent revenue. The revenue for this fund for carrying out

14.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/77

priority TEN-T projects would come from a levy of one cent
per litre on all fuel consumed on EU roads, which would bring
in EUR 3 000 million a year, for 300 million tonnes consumed
in 2006. This financing would provide a modest, solidarity-
based contribution for future generations from all European
road-users.

6.4.
In order to ensure better coordination of project
launches, financial arrangements, implementation follow-up
and monitoring in the new countries, the Commission must

have additional means available under a new structure such as
a ‘European Transport Infrastructure Coordination Agency’.

6.5.
So as to prevent some states from pulling out of
projects which they have put forward for priority classification,
or from overrunning the deadlines, the Commission must (as
with private projects) provide for heavy sanctions or penalties
for those states which do not respect the general European
interest or who do not meet the requirements of other states
involved in the projects concerned.

Brussels, 25 September 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following points in the section opinion were deleted. In the vote on the proposal to delete these points, more
than a quarter of the votes cast were in favour of their retention.

Point 4.3.1

It has been demonstrated that current funding options do not allow European infrastructure projects to be completed
under satisfactory technical conditions and within the appropriate timescale. The reasons are well known: it is mainly
due to the fact that project implementation is the responsibility of Member States. For budgetary or political reasons,
in a difficult economic climate, Member States — with an eye to the Maastricht criteria — will be obliged to give
precedence to more immediate problems, i.e. minor reductions in everyday operating costs and major reductions in
investment expenditure. Investment in priority TEN-Ts decided upon in early 2004 by the Council and the Parliament
at the Commission’s suggestion responds to a need for more rapid completion of the Single Market in order to boost
competitiveness, and therefore growth and employment. As part of the growth initiative advocated by the Italian
presidency, the Committee suggests that the sums involved in ‘virtuous’ investments earmarked for priority TEN-Ts
alone should not be included when calculating compliance with the Maastricht criteria if the state concerned really
has embarked upon a debt reduction policy.

Point 6.4

In order to bolster the EU Italian presidency’s ‘growth initiative’ during this period of stagnation and major budgetary
deficits in certain countries, the Committee suggests that the sums involved in ‘virtuous’ investments earmarked for
priority TEN-T projects alone should not be included when calculating compliance with the Maastricht criteria.

C 10/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2004

Outcome of the vote

For: 48, against: 41, abstentions: 8.

The following amendments, which were supported by more than a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected at the
plenary session

Point 4.4

Delete.

Outcome of the vote

For: 37, against: 53, abstentions: 10.

Point 6.3

Delete.

Outcome of the vote

For: 25, against: 51, abstentions: 3.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: “Innovation policy: updating the Union’s approach
in the context of the Lisbon strategy”’

(COM(2003) 112 final)

(2004/C 10/16)

On 12 March 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 September 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Soares.

At its 402nd plenary session of 24 and 25 September 2003 (meeting of 25 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 66 votes to none with one abstention.

1. Summary

1.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s Com-
munication and endorses the goal of boosting innovation
capabilities along the lines of the strategy set out by the Lisbon
Council.

1.2.
Boosting innovation in Europe — as a major contri-
bution to economic growth and employment — is a highly

topical issue at a time when the difficulties that the European
economy is experiencing in recovering its momentum are
compounded by political uncertainties and hazards.

The Committee shares the Commission’s systemic view
1.3.
of the innovation process and its belief that innovation can
assume various guises; it is a process that is nonetheless based
on human resources skills — rooted in education and training
— for achieving innovation in firms. The EESC firmly believes