Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on corridors and TEN-T: a lever for growth and vector of European cohesion and the development of a Euro-Mediterranean transport network
Date: 2004-02-11
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), economic development, enlargement of the Union, trans-European network, transport network

C 109/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘corridors and TEN-T: a lever for growth and vector
of European cohesion’ and ‘the development of a Euro-Mediterranean transport network’

(2004/C 109/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the referral from the Council of the European Union and the letter from the president of
COREPER dated 15 September 2003 requesting the Committee of the Regions' opinion on transport and
links in Europe in the local and regional context, taking into account major cross-border infrastructure
projects;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on the development of a Euro-Mediterranean transport network – COM(2003) 376 final;

Having regard to its president's decision of 19 June 2003 to instruct the CoR Commission for Territorial
Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on a European initiative for growth - Investing in networks and knowledge for growth and employment –
COM(2003) 579 final;

Having regard to the report of the High Level Group chaired by Mr Van Miert on priority projects for a
trans-European transport network up to 2020, dated 30 June 2003;

Having regard to its opinion on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European network
(CdR 284/2001 fin) (1);

Having regard to the amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network – COM(2003) 564 final;

Having regard to the Charter of Naples adopted by the Informal Council of Ministers of Transport of the
European Union on 4 and 5 July 2003;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 291/2003 rev. 1) adopted on 3 December 2003 by the Commis-
sion for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Bernard Soulage, chairman of the Transport Committee
of the Regional Council for Rhône-Alpes (FR/PES));

Whereas:

1)

2)

3)

The development of transport infrastructures acts as a vital lever for building Europe, making trade
easier, providing a source of economic growth, contributing to territorial cohesion and constructing
a Europe which is close to the people; therefore the TEN-T and the corridors play an essential role
in enabling the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, i.e. the unimpeded operation
of the single market.

Readjusting the balance between the various modes of transport is a vital condition for achieving
sustainable development which respects the environment and complies with the European Union's
international commitments;

For balanced development of the regions, the development of peripheral and landlocked regions
should be properly taken into account, vulnerable areas protected, accessibility enhanced – especially
in border areas - and a Europe close to the people established;

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 53rd plenary session, held on 11 and 12 February 2004
(meeting of 11 February):

(1) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 7

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

The role of transport networks in the development of the Union

The Committee of the Regions

welcomes the initiative, since European and trans-Euro-
1.1
pean networks have a leverage effect on growth and employ-
ment, and underscores the need for a long-term vision of the
Union's development, especially against
the background of
enlargement and the development of multimodal corridors
beyond the Union's borders; this is particularly important in
order to avoid the new member states being placed in the
periphery;

system's

underlines that,

1.2
in matters of transport, the European
Union's actions should not be governed by a short-term
budgetary approach. It is vital to take into account the trans-
contribution to multi-centred development
port
throughout the Union, with a view to sustainability. The infra-
structures to be built for tomorrow must not be designed solely
to solve today's traffic congestion or the congestion expected
when Europe is enlarged. These also shape traffic flow in the
future, and this – whether it involves the movement of people,
services or goods – also concerns transport links in the Medi-
terranean, in the Baltic Sea, with the Balkans and with other
neighbouring non-Member States;

1.3
considers that infrastructures generate economic devel-
opment and – in the long term – help restore an economic
balance between regions. We must start preparing today for
the Union's development (and even for a subsequent enlarge-
ment) by strengthening the Union's links (physical and other-
wise) with its neighbours to the east and to the south, in order
to create a wide area of stability, integration and prosperity. It
is with this in mind that an ever-stronger link must be estab-
lished between trans-European transport networks (TEN-Ts)
and the pan-European and Euro-Mediterranean corridors,
which can be developed under the new neighbourhood policy
strategy. As the High Level Group's report indicated, wise long-
term planning for TENs must include close links between the
priority TEN-T projects and pan-European corridors, using the
instruments available to do so;

1.6
demonstrates, against this background, its interest in the
proposals made by the High Level Group (Van Miert Group),
based on specific criteria regarding the selection of priority
projects, according to the European added value and the level
of commitment – especially financial – of the Member States
concerned; it is nevertheless concerned that the list of projects
chosen remains particularly long, if projects already started but
not yet completed and/or funded are taken into account. A
programme should therefore be drawn up setting out projects
which are ready to start up and already have funding and
which can therefore be launched without delay (Quick start
programme). The Committee of the Regions fully intends to be
involved and contribute;

1.7
approves of the priority given to cross-border projects
which encourage intermodality and the use of sustainable
forms of transport, especially the concept of motorways of the
sea, provided that these fit into a comprehensive sustainable
transport scheme. Support measures for motorways of the sea
should not
in competition
between ports or in relation to existing shipping freight services
or sustainable land-based rail or inland waterway freight trans-
portation services;

significant distortions

create

affirms the local and regional authorities' desire to be
1.8
more directly involved in the project study, drafting and inte-
gration process, in particular with regard to cross-border links,
where local and regional authorities are often amongst the
most active parties in ensuring that
these projects move
forward.

Definition and implementation of the priority routes

The Committee of the Regions

appreciates that the Commission wishes to see the rate
1.9
of
financing from European funds increased to 30 % for
projects establishing cross-border links on main routes declared
to be of European interest; these projects usually mobilise the
least funding from traditional sources. It urges governments to
implement this recommendation without delay;

stresses,

1.4
in this context, the priority nature of cross-
border links and routes across natural obstacles; developing
these ought to help lower barriers to trade and even out devel-
opment levels throughout Europe;

1.10
endorses the Commission's proposal to set up a proce-
dure for the ‘declaration of European interest’, and to put in
place ‘coordinators’ responsible for monitoring cross-border
projects;

supports the Commission's proposal to define clear prio-
1.5
rities for the various trans-European transport network projects,
in order to channel the available financial resources efficiently
and avoid building sections of these routes in a piecemeal
fashion, which would considerably delay completion and hence
their impact on the development of Europe;

1.11
feels that the declaration of European interest should
only be granted to projects to which the countries concerned
have shown commitment, both in terms of funding and as
regards the work completion dates, in order to ensure speedy,
coordinated implementation by the parties involved;

C 109/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1.12
would like the management of priority projects to lead
to the creation of steering committees for the main routes,
along the lines of those set up for the multimodal corridors,
involving the local and regional authorities directly affected by
these main routes;

1.13
suggests that the criteria for determining the priority
routes clearly identify the objectives of the different projects as
regards three main factors: their contribution to the network
effect and to unblocking bottlenecks (connections between
source/target regions with heavy traffic,
improved transport
conditions, time-saving), their sustainable development impact
(environment,
including local effects on the regions through
which these routes pass and on vulnerable areas, measures
encouraging a shift to the use of sustainable modes of trans-
port) and their impact on spatial planning (enhanced accessi-
bility, impact on the economy of the areas through which the
routes pass). Nevertheless it proposes that more attention
should be paid in the Community to developing and using
innovative technologies, also from the point of view of indus-
trial policy;

funds already committed, and urges the EIB to develop new
ways of funding the network;

1.19
underlines that the proposal that the EIB play a greater
role is not in itself enough to ensure implementation of the
growth initiative and the TEN-Ts;

feels that recourse to public-private partnership (PPP)
1.20
can provide solutions for some projects, but that in many cases
the cost and traffic risks are such that, unless very costly guar-
antees are provided, capital injections and commercial revenue
from infrastructure charges will be very limited, and will in any
case have to be supplemented by public money from the EU or
the Member States and from the new financial resources
referred to in the following paragraphs. Here the EIB could
have a stronger role to play in facilitating the involvement of
private investors, especially by means of the guarantee mechan-
isms already used successfully in some projects;

deems it vital that preliminary coordinated assessment
1.14
procedures be set up which can lead to the establishment of
trans-national committees of
the cross-border
sections so as to ensure that decisions on priority routes are
more consistent and transparent, allowing the local and
regional authorities affected to be more involved;

inquiry for

return in the short

points out that the cross-border sections do not offer
1.21
enough financial
term to encourage
balanced partnership, and that recourse to tolls on the only
sections which are of high quality is not likely to offset the
current problems facing border areas, but might even aggravate
them;

1.15
would like the implementing arrangements for the
‘motorways of the sea’ to be developed so as to ensure that the
regular routes planned are viable and the port infrastructures
and the link-up to the hinterland infrastructures appropriate,
but also taking direct account of maritime traffic safety issues
and guarantees regarding the pollution risks inherent to this
type of traffic. Likewise, so as to avoid distorting competition
in any way between ports,
it is important that regular sea
routes are defined for each stretch of coastline as part of a
coordinated process.

Financing arrangements for the priority routes

The Committee of the Regions

1.22
considers that, for all the above reasons, it is necessary
to clarify what forms of funding are available for implementing
the trans-European network. Even if Member States' specific
contributions and public funding are drastically increased, new
sources of funding will still have to be found. Prudence is by
necessity called for in raising levels of taxation, particularly on
fuel: the main purposes of such taxes is to cover external costs
(safety issues, pollution, noise, greenhouse effect) and they
must not be viewed as an easy source of funding for extending
networks. Moreover, the current European legislative frame-
work makes the use of tax revenues for a priority purpose a
very uncertain undertaking. It is of course desirable that this
framework should be developed, but
there are only slim
chances of this happening and it would take a long time to
achieve. An initial step might be to allow Member States more
autonomy in managing fuel taxes;

1.16
considers that a European growth initiative requires
exceptionally high levels of funding. The share of transport
networks in this initiative is necessarily large;

1.17
stresses the scale of the financing requirements asso-
ciated with developing trans-European transport networks and
is concerned about the Member States' capacity to raise the
required sums, especially at a time when they are trying to cut
back the share of public expenditure in their GDP with a view
to complying with the stability pact;

1.18
shares the view of the Council of Ministers as regards
the need for the European Investment Bank (EIB) to be more
involved in financing the network, welcomes the additional

1.23
considers that, given the difficulties in using general
taxation, funding for priority routes must nowadays call mainly
on charges for a specific purpose, such as user charge stickers,
road charges or tolls, creating redistribution mechanisms to
offset the damaging effects of high charges for costly engi-
neering work and less frequently used sections. The Committee
of the Regions will be particularly attentive in monitoring the
speedy and fair establishment of these mechanisms;

1.24
points out that the cross-border sections must receive
considerable financial support from the EU – according to
current proposals, 30 % of project costs – and also from the
Member States concerned, particularly when they have to cross
natural obstacles or are located in vulnerable areas;

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

1.25
suggests that the undertaking of the Member States
the funding for cross-border
concerned to pay a share of
sections affecting them should constitute one of the key criteria
when declaring priority routes to be of European interest and
asks that governments respect the timetables proposed in the
High Level Group's report;

1.26
proposes that ways of funding the various constituent
sections of a priority route be sought which tie in with their
main objectives: projects to ease congestion and unblock bottle-
necks can more easily call on public-private partnership since
there is a high volume of traffic and users are willing to pay for
time saved, while projects aimed at improving the accessibility
of outlying regions and the construction of cross-border
sections are more suitable for financing from tax revenues or
similar resources;

the

would like

funding mechanisms

1.27
for priority
projects to be examined in greater depth in order to ensure
that resources are available from each of the interested parties,
including the EU, so that excessive use of European funding
earmarked for other purposes, such as the European Structural
Funds, can be avoided;

underlines that TEN-T funding from local and regional
1.28
authorities can but
remain peripheral, given that heavy
commitments to other infrastructures which are often vital to
In order to improve the
the smooth operation of TEN-Ts.
regions' accessibility, competitiveness and territorial cohesion,
use of the Structural Funds and the TEN-T actions should be
coordinated; this should be stipulated in the Community guide-
lines on the TEN-T revision;

it

considers

is important

insofar as TEN-T funding can be
1.29
that,
(ERDF, Cohesion
combined with other Community funds
Funds),
to set ceilings for combined aid,
according to the degree of disadvantage. To this end, an EU-
wide reference classification of regions should be compiled
jointly by those responsible for transport and regional policy
(also involving, if necessary, those responsible for competition
policy).

Brussels, 11 February 2004

2. Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

2.1
asks that a more detailed study be carried out into the
list of operations selected in the Commission's proposal, as
heralded by the Commission in the context of the Growth
Initiative as the Quick start programme, so that a realistic list
of projects can be compiled which are able to be undertaken
without delay;

2.2
proposes that the declaration of European interest for
priority routes in the trans-European transport network be
dependent on (i) a clear commitment by the Member States
concerned to making a financial contribution to building the
cross-border sections of these routes and (ii) the local authori-
ties concerned being involved;

2.3
stresses the need to define realistic priorities for building
the trans-European transport network routes, especially as
regards the multi-annual planning of financial resources from
the EU and the Member States concerned, so that the concen-
tration of resources can ensure efficiency and compliance with
schedules; the selection criteria must take into account the suit-
ability of the funding methods chosen (users and/or taxpayers)
in terms of
the various constituent
sections of the routes in question;

the main functions of

2.4
suggests that the local and regional authorities affected
be involved in setting up steering committees for the priority
routes and in the procedures for assessing and drawing up
projects; this could be achieved, for example, through perma-
nent participation in the work of the agency for major infra-
structure work proposed by the Italian EU presidency at the
meeting held in Naples on 4 and 5 July 2003,
if this idea
should come to fruition;

proposes that explicit reference be made to maritime
2.5
safety and environmental protection issues in the guidelines for
the motorways of the sea;

2.6
calls for the new neighbourhood strategy to confirm the
importance of the pan-European and Euro-Mediterranean corri-
dors to the creation of an area of integration and development,
and to provide sufficient financial resources to achieve them;
and reiterates that it is essential that stakeholder regional and
local authorities should be involved in planning them.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB