Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Pan-European transport corridors’
Date: 2004-10-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, Europe, common transport policy, economic and social cohesion, trans-European network, transport network, transport policy

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/17

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Pan-European transport corridors’

(2005/C 120/04)

On 23 January 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion, under
Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, on: ‘Pan-European transport corridors’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 5 October 2004. The rapporteur
was Ms Alleweldt.

At its 412th plenary session (meeting of 27 October 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 164 votes to two, with nine abstentions:

1. Introduction

in future on priorities along certain trunk routes instead of
van Miert Group's
general network-related policy. The
approach failed to secure support.

The permanent

1.1
study group resumed its work in
January 2003 when its remit (1) was extended to cover all
matters relating to the development of the pan-European trans-
port corridors. In December 2002 the Plenary Assembly had
taken note of and emphatically approved the activities of the
previous term of office. In addition to the continuation and
the European
corridor-related activities,
development of
Commission also made significant new decisions in 2003 and
2004 on the development of
the trans-European transport
networks (TEN-T), which also relate to work in the ten Helsinki
corridors. EU enlargement in May 2004 and the prospects for
accession of south-east European countries also change the
general framework for joint infrastructure policy and coopera-
tion in the corridors.

1.2
The purpose of this own-initiative opinion is not only to
report on the activities and views of the European Economic
and Social Committee on the pan-European transport corridors
over the past two years, but also to indicate what further steps
should be taken by the parties concerned and how the
Committee can be of help.

2. New general framework in the pan-European transport

infrastructure policy

2.2
The EESC discussed the future of TEN-T in detail at a
section meeting in Rome in September 2003 with the Italian
Economic and Labour Council's (CNEL) Commission V on
large-scale infrastructure projects and networks. A joint state-
ment (3) was issued calling for more commitment to achieve an
integrated transport network that effectively integrates the new
Member States and goes beyond this. Intermodality and sustain-
ability would have to come to the fore and financing would
have to be jointly reinforced and possibly assisted by European
funding for the trans-European transport network.

infrastructure policy

The Italian presidency asked the EESC to draft an own-
2.3
initiative opinion to build on the discussion begun in Rome.
The Committee outlined its current key positions on the Euro-
pean transport
document:
Preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and
neighbouring countries - sustainable mobility - financing (4). The
EESC suggested trying out new ways and means of financing in
the future, giving greater priority to environmental protection
and social and environmental sustainability and in the planning
and implementation of a pan-European transport network,
continuing the established work in the Helsinki corridors, and
responding in new ways to new challenges.

in the

2.1
The Commission began to revise the TEN-T in mid-
2003 with the report from the High Level Group chaired
by Karel van Miert. As a result, the 1996 list of priority
projects was extended and new EU financing options, and a
new kind of improved coordination, were put forward (2). Plans
were also made to enshrine the concept of transport corridors
in EU infrastructure policy, with the intention of concentrating

The European Union has made the peaceful reconstruc-
2.4
tion of the south-east Europe region a key priority and has
pressed ahead consistently with the development of a fully
functional transport
infrastructure. A transport concept has
been developed for south-east Europe in addition to the
existing corridors related to the region (X, V, VII, IV and VIII),

(1) Bureau Decision of 23 October 2002
(2) For further information see EESC opinion OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, p

70

(3) CESE 1043/2003 fin – available from the TEN section secretariat
(4) OJ C 108, 30.4.2004, p. 35

C 120/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

and based on the 1997 Helsinki Declaration and TINA (5)
experiences. It consists of an intermodal infrastructure network,
the so-called South East Europe Core Regional Transport
Network, which should be implemented through a joint, coor-
dinated course of action. The states involved (6) have prepared a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which, inter alia, expli-
citly refers to cooperation with the region's socio-economic
interest groups and the permanent EESC study group.

The coordination of the steering committees' work
2.5
in the ten Helsinki corridors (7) and four
transport areas
(PETRAs) (8) has been given a new look. About once a year the
Commission invites presidents and heads of the corridor secre-
tariats and other representatives of European or EU institutions
to discuss the progress of the work and its prospects. The
former G-24 transport working group should be replaced by a
smaller, more efficient structure. It is also clear to those respon-
sible in the Commission, that it alone can provide certain
aspects of coordination and technical and organisational
support. The most recent meetings took place in June 2003
and on 15 March 2004. The most important points discussed
are taken up in sections 3 and 4 below.

EU enlargement and the new neighbourhood policy also
2.6
have some bearing on future transport policy planning in
Europe and beyond. A joint Commission-European Parliament
strategy meeting was held in June, which representatives of the
European transport sector, including from the EU's new neigh-
bouring states, were invited to attend. It was decided to set up
a high-level group, with the task of preparing the ground for
agreements on the expansion of trans-European trunk routes,
particularly in the direction of eastern neighbours, the Russian
Federation, the Black Sea region, and the Balkans. For the Medi-
terranean, a project was launched for the creation of a Euro-
Mediterranean transport network. Investigations are currently
under way into transport infrastructure needs in Turkey.

3. Organising the work of the permanent study group

3.1 New developments and ongoing tasks: information and transpar-

ency

Despite seven years of

3.1.1
implementing the Helsinki
Declaration and consolidating cooperation through steering
committees, and despite, in overall terms, input from the Euro-
pean Commission, there has been scant improvement in the
transparency and enhanced networking of the various planning
processes. The new TEN-T guidelines, the corridors and trans-
port areas, the SEE Core Regional Transport Network, the work
of ECMT and UN-ECE, and various regional reinforced coopera-

(5) Transport-Infrastructure-Needs-Assessment

infrastructure
planning in the applicant countries in the second half of the 1990s

(TINA),

(6) Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia-Montenegro, FYROM
(7) A detailed map of the corridors is available from the TEN section

secretariat

(8) PETRAs:

four transport areas according to the 1997 Helsinki-
Declaration: Barents-Euro-Arctic – Black Sea basin – Mediterranean
basin – Adriatic/Ionian Seas

tion initiatives are still the domain of just a small group of
experts.

3.1.2
The lack of transparency is amplified at the level of
organised civil society. One of the key roles of the permanent
study group has been and continues to be to act as an interface
for information both within official bodies, and to civil society
organisations.

3.1.3
The Commission is working on an information system
(GIS), which is to be available across the board for planning
and evaluating results. At present this information system is
only available for internal use, but it could be expanded to
include socio-economic data, which would also make it more
useful for the EESC. This matter should be discussed with the
Commission.

3.2 Making use of consultation: ‘European’ transport routes call for a

‘European consensus’

3.2.1
The van Miert group results highlight the difficulties
that cause a gap to emerge between ambitious European plan-
ning and actually putting those plans into practice. This gap is
also hard to influence. It has been rightly pointed out that
more cross-border planning procedures and closer involvement
of civil society interest groups will be needed for better results
in the future. These concerns are also reflected in the new TEN
guidelines.

3.2.2
Involvement of civil society organisations is the key to
balanced development, taking account of local and regional
interests and bringing life to the operation and use of the
roads. Infrastructure projects with European implications only
fulfil their function if they are in the interests of sustainability.
This requires the involvement of business associations, trans-
and
port
consumer organisations working across borders at European
level. The impetus
transport
routes can only be sustained by a socially-rooted appreciation
of ‘Europe’ and a consensus which takes account of economic
and social realities.

implementing ‘European’

and environmental

trade unions,

companies,

for

to achieve this. However,

3.2.3
The EESC has repeatedly offered to help build this
consensus. Hearings must be used systematically at European
level
the EESC advises against
carrying this out as a mandatory act without considering the
results. Despite meeting with considerable interest and produ-
cing clear conclusions, the 1998 hearing on the TINA process
organised by the EESC in conjunction with the Commission
was completely ignored in the final report.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/19

3.3 From consultation to cooperation on ideas and practical work

well placed to contribute to this process through specific action
which takes practical concerns into account.

3.3.1
The EESC has spent many years working on pan-Euro-
pean transport policy, and for a long time, the basic call was
for consultation and involvement. To a large extent,
this
concern has now been taken on board by actors throughout
Europe, and the EESC has established good working contacts.
The Committee therefore has a legitimate claim to participate
in the work of steering committees and other bodies, both by
contributing ideas and through practical forms of collaboration.

3.3.2
The recent own-initiative opinion on Preparing trans-
port infrastructure for the future, which explicitly defines what the
Committee considers to be the basic principles of European
transport policy is, in particular, a substantive basis for contri-
buting ideas. The objective of sustainability, ways of improving
financing, and gearing transport infrastructure to pan-European
needs are three key issues. The opinion also lays down priori-
ties for action in the development of the transport corridors.
Given their relevance as guidelines for the work of the perma-
nent study group, they are briefly summarised below (9):

— Better links between economic centres should be assessed.

— Intermodality must be increased on the basis of comprehen-

sible criteria.

— Links to inland waterways must be improved.

— Short sea shipping should also be included.

3.4 Creation of a corridor network and regional cooperation

3.4.1 Work in the steering committees is now proceeding at
about the same rate in all corridors. At the same time regional
connections can be observed, which means that today we are
dealing with a corridor network rather than individual trunk
routes. A regional component of cooperation is increasingly
being developed in approaches for the transport areas,
for
example in Corridors IV, V, VII and X in south-east Europe,
and Corridors I and IX in the Baltic area. By contrast, there is
little activity in the officially designated transport areas
(PETRAs).

3.4.2
Both approaches – the establishment of trunk routes
and the extensive development of regional connections – are
mutually reinforcing.
In future, the permanent study group
should focus more closely on regional development issues. The
its various
EESC makes a substantial contribution across
sections by bringing together transport policy, regional devel-
opment, and the central themes of its external relations work
(eastern neighbours,
south-east
Europe).

the Northern Dimension,

— Cooperation on railway transport has already achieved a
certain degree of success and should be further reinforced.

3.5 An objective for the future: establishing new connections

— Greater attention should be paid to links between regional
and local transport networks and main transport routes.

— Work on the corridors must systematically incorporate
qualitative, operational development objectives
(safety,
consumer interests, social concerns [particularly for road
transport], service quality, environmental impact).

— To a large extent, the corridor approach should be main-

tained and extended to a wider area.

The strategic meeting of

3.5.1
the Commission and the
European Parliament in June 2004 was a welcome move as the
EESC has always held that the EU's role in initiating implemen-
should not be
tation of European transport connections
weakened as a result of enlargement. A letter
from the
Commission to the EESC describes the meeting as a starting
point for a more open and broad-based coordination process
to which all actors can contribute. Achieving this is crucial for
the success and sustainability of new transport planning at
European level.

3.3.3
The Commission has taken some of these objectives
on board in the revised TEN guidelines. The main concern now
is to push ahead in a practical and coherent way with their
implementation through cross-border cooperation. The EESC is

(9) OJ C 108, 30.4.2004, p. 35, points 1.8.1 - 1.8.8

3.5.2
It is vital for new planning to draw on past experience,
not least the work of the steering committees. The specific
contribution of the EESC described in this opinion, which is
the outcome of many years of practical experience, could now
be used at an early stage of infrastructure planning. It is impor-
tant to make use of this opportunity.

C 120/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2005

4. Activities of the permanent study group in the trans-

port corridors

A trade union working party has now been set up in
4.1
Corridor II (10). The first meeting took place in Moscow on 10
and 11 April 2003. The EESC also took part in the official
meeting of the steering committee on 15 and 16 May 2003 in
Berlin. Both meetings signal a promising outlook for our work.
The problem in Corridor II is caused by difficult cooperation
with Belarus. Meanwhile a trend has set in, whereby Belarus –
and with it a large, very well developed part of the corridor – is
circumvented to the north due to border difficulties. Coopera-
tion with rail companies is currently being increased. Extension
of the corridor to Ekaterinburg was recently proposed. It is
particularly important to find better ways of dealing with road
traffic problems and border procedures, and to take up the
EESC's help in this regard.

Involvement in Corridor IV (11) work has gone from
4.2
strength to strength. At the meeting of the steering committee
in Sopron (Hungary) on 20 and 21 May 2003, representatives
of the rail companies and the railway trade unions in Corridor
IV also came together for a productive discussion – which is to
transport. This
be continued – on the promotion of rail
occurred at the last session on 10 and 11 November 2003 in
Dortmund. Technical
and
proposed solutions for border crossings were identified as the
main theme for further discussions. To ensure continuity, a
representative of the trade-union-based cooperation involving
railway workers will take part in the steering committees as an
observer. The economic and social situation and technical and
organisational aspects in the road freight transport in Corridor
IV could now be addressed.

organisational

obstacles

and

4.3
The EESC is particularly keen to promote Corridor
X (12). To that end, contacts with the appropriate steering
committee have been stepped up. More specific moves were
made on possible EESC activities at the steering committee
meeting in Slovenia on 18 and 19 July 2003. On 3 November
2003 the EESC held a very successful dialogue conference in
Belgrade and issued a joint statement (13). This set in motion
further steps to increase rail transport in particular. Working
relations in Sarajevo and cooperation with the SEE Core
Networks steering group are further topics to be covered by
this work. With an eye to securing a balanced policy for
seaports and their
incorporation into hinterland transport
systems, Corridor V (14) is an important trunk route.

(10) Germany – Poland – Belarus – Russia.
(11) Germany – Czech Republic – Austria – Slovakia – Hungary –

Romania – Bulgaria – Greece – Turkey.

(12) Austria – Croatia – Serbia – FYROM – Slovenia – Hungary – Serbia

– Bulgaria.
(13) See Appendix.
(14) Italy – Slovenia – Hungary – Ukraine – Slovakia – Croatia –

Bosnia-Herzegovina.

4.3.1
A joint event to promote better rail services is planned
for early November 2004, to be held in conjunction with the
ARGE Corridor XLine, railways syndicate. This will include a
demonstration train and events in Villach (Austria), Zagreb
(Croatia), and Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina). (15)

The EESC has drawn up a series of proposals (16) to
4.4
support inland waterway transport and Corridor VII (17) (the
Danube). The most recent steering committee meeting was held
in July 2004. Discussions are continuing under the auspices of
the permanent study group, and these are focussing on current
obstacles to the growth of shipping in Corridor VII, and on
suitable provisions to overcome them. Also under discussion
are options and investment needs for closer integration into a
multimodal transport system. (18)

4.4.1
In its opinion on Preparing transport infrastructure for the
future adopted on 28 January 2004 (19) the EESC mentioned the
necessity of ‘promoting the inland waterway Corridor VII, the
Danube,
links to rail routes and appropriate technical and
social regulations governing cross-border inland waterways
transport’.

the Joint Consultative Committee EU/
4.4.2 Moreover,
in order to
Romania (Bucharest, 23-24/5/02) proposed that,
optimise the role of the Danube as a pan-European transport
corridor, measures be taken and greater financial assistance
provided to improve its navigability and its connection with
the Black Sea.

4.5
Since the 2001 dialogue conference on Corridors
III (20) and VI (21) in Katowice, the EESC has not engaged in any
activities of its own in relation to these corridors. However, a
letter was sent by the Corridor III secretariat in August 2004,
inviting contributions for further development in the form of
proposals for the 2004/2005 work programme.

4.6
The EESC has received particular support over the past
year or two from the new trade-union-based cooperation, orga-
nised by the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and
involving transport workers along the corridors and across
Europe. The ETF project has made a substantial contribution
both in terms of ideas and practical activities to the success of
the EESC's work across all transport sectors, and is set to step
up its cooperation in the future.

(15) In view of the fact that individual events are in the course of
preparation, detailed information has not been included in this
opinion, but can be obtained from the TEN section secretariat
(16) Towards a pan-European system of inland waterway transport, OJ

C 10, 14.1.2004, p 49.

(17) Germany – Austria – Slovakia – Hungary – Croatia – Serbia –

Bulgaria – Moldavia – Ukraine – Romania.

(18) For more on this, see Mr Levaux's working document, which can

be obtained from the TEN section secretariat

(19) See footnote 4.
(20) Germany – Poland – Ukraine.
(21) Poland – Slovakia – Czech Republic.

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/21

Finally,

4.7
it should be noted that the president of the
permanent study group, in cooperation with the TEN Section
secretariat and with the support of
the relevant European
Commission departments, has prepared information sheets
with brief descriptions of each of the corridors. (22)

5. Recommendations for future activity

5.1
The permanent study group has taken on board the new
objectives of pan-European transport policy, as described
above, and incorporated them into its regional, practical and
conceptual planning. More than ever, the EESC's strength is its
ability to reconcile interests and to make practical suggestions.
The emphasis must be on action and presence on the ground.

5.2
Interested parties from inside and outside the EESC can
use the Committee's permanent study group as a clearing
house for information and contacts. The permanent study
group's main remit is to lead and coordinate the EESC's activ-
ities and to disseminate information on them. It also has a
responsible role in overall coordination at European level. The
study group can draw on 13 years of active EESC involvement
in helping shape pan-European transport policy.

5.3
Over the next two years the emphasis of EESC activities
should shift to practical cooperation and involvement of civil
society organisations on the ground. The aim is to enable the
relevant civil society organisations to contribute to achieving
the transport policy objectives listed in point 3.3.2 by offering

Brussels, 27 October 2004.

evaluations, criticisms and suggestions for improvement in rela-
tion to individual corridors, regions or infrastructure projects.

EESC cooperation with the corridor steering committees
5.4
and the European Commission should be stepped up. The
permanent study group needs to take on a new role in helping
to establish the ‘South East Europe Core Regional Transport
Network’ (see point 2.4).

5.5
The permanent study group needs to look into ways
and means of ensuring that operational aspects of the transport
business are taken into account more closely when setting up
the pan-European transport corridors. In particular, it should
be possible to define specific aspects of corridor policy relating
to intermodality, environmental protection, security,
social
conditions and efficiency.

5.6
In the context of European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
new corridors are currently being planned. The permanent
study group should contribute by responding to the European
Commission's call for openness in this process.

5.7
The work of the European Commission and the steering
committees in corridors and transport areas should be more
closely interconnected. The European Commission has an
important role to play as a coordinator and provider of tech-
nical and organisational support. It would be good to have
more scope for joint coordination, involving all parties, of the
various activities at European level, and closer involvement of
the European Parliament.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(22) See Appendix 2 – data are unofficial and subject to change.