Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Pan-European transport corridors 2004-2006
Date: 2006-09-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, cooperation policy, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

C 318/180

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Pan-European transport corridors
2004-2006

(2006/C 318/30)

On 16 December 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Pan-European transport corridors 2004-2006.

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 2006. The rapporteur
was Ms Alleweldt.

At its 429th plenary session, held on 13/14 September 2006 (meeting of 13 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 192 votes to four with ten abstentions:

1. Aims of the permanent study group

Since the beginnings of

1.1
the pan-European transport
policy in 1991, which laid the foundations for planning the
major corridor links, the EESC has worked actively and with
great conviction on this policy of promoting cohesion beyond
the EU's external borders. In 2003 a brochure (1) was published
on the work undertaken over the previous ten years. Since then,
a permanent study group has been working continuously on
this issue. The last opinion (2) covered the 2002 — 2004
reporting period. The present opinion looks at developments up
to mid-2006.

1.2
The aim of the permanent study group is to tie in the
creation of a common pan-European transport infrastructure
with the pursuit of a policy for a sustainable, efficient transport
system and with cohesion targets, right from the outset and not
limited by the EU's borders.
In doing so, social, economic,
operational, environmental, security policy and regional issues
need to be taken into consideration, and the corresponding
interest groups involved. The permanent study group wishes to
make its own contribution to this through its practical work in
the field. The opinion presented here is a report on the activities
carried out and experience gathered in the 2004-2006 period. It
also offers an assessment of the political changes that have
taken place in this area.

2. Conclusions

The link between transport infrastructure development
2.1
on the one hand, and the implementation of the key transport
policy objectives and operational issues on the other, is at the
heart of the EESC initiative and has lost none of its relevance
and urgency. Although it has been asserted regularly and often
at political level that such a link would be established, progress
has been very modest because no specific implementation
method for doing so has been developed. The hope that trans-
port policy aims would almost automatically tie in with
continued infrastructure development has not materialised over
the past years. Here, a key role could fall to the regions, where
all issues come together in practice and where an understanding

(1) EESC: Ten years of pan-European transport policy, 2003.
(2) Committee opinion on The Pan-European Transport Corridors, OJ No.

C 120 of 20.5.2005, p.17.

of the pan-European context is particularly necessary. Hence,
leading by example, the permanent study group held a regional
conference in North-east Poland to illustrate the importance of
taking into consideration the effects planned trunk routes would
have on regions. European policy must take on more responsi-
bility here. It will not be enough to consider only the central
trunk routes as a European task.

In the past two years much has been done to adapt Euro-
2.2
pean infrastructure planning to the new political circumstances.
Within the EU new priority projects have been launched, new
central trunk routes with neighbouring states identified, and an
initiative with the Western Balkans further developed. In prin-
ciple, the EESC considers these new initiatives to have been a
success. It particularly welcomes the fact that the task of estab-
lishing links with neighbouring states has been taken seriously.
At the same time, however, these new initiatives have remained
rooted in old concepts: the focus is virtually exclusively on the
planning of transport routes, with little or no attention paid to
questions of
impact, or to
intermodality and environmental
local economic and social
interests.. The EESC considers this
highly regrettable.

One of the reasons for revising infrastructure planning at
2.3
European level was that only very slow progress was being
made with implementation; this was often due to lack of funds.
Hence, concentrating on just a few projects became the main
priority. The EESC feels that European subsidies must also be
increased, and has already made suggestions elsewhere on the
possibility of additional funding. At the very least, the 20 % co-
financing available through EU funds for projects within the EU
should be better exploited. Also, with increased subsidies, the
conditions stipulated for infrastructure projects,
for example,
environmental, intermodal and security projects, can and must
be formulated in a more binding way.

2.4
The EESC advocates finding more common ground
between the cross-border bodies set up by national transport
ministries in the Member States (such as the steering committees
for the corridors) and those set up by the Commission in

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/181

this field. Coordination alone will not suffice, or will mean
losing out on important opportunities to make progress with
practical policies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ascer-
tain who has what responsibilities for achieving overall transport
policy aims. The first three pan-European transport conferences
in 1991, 1994 and 1997 provided important guidelines. The
1997 Declaration of Helsinki still provides an excellent basis for
cooperation thanks to its comprehensive nature. At the time the
intention was to regularly assess progress made. Today almost
the only thing being assessed is the completion of construction
work.

The EESC conference in Bialystok was a great success (3).
2.5
Not only did it bring Europe to the region, it also conveyed
local people's expectations regarding an effective pan-European
transport policy. The EESC will focus its future activities in this
field on its capacity to provide such an impetus. It would also
be useful to continue to work closely with the steering commit-
tees for the corridors, the South East Europe Transport Observa-
tory (SEETO) and, of course, the Commission, as part of on-
going coordination work. It is important, in future, to study and
evaluate not only regional approaches, but also transport-mode-
related issues along trunk routes and priority projects within the
TEN-T network.

3. A new context for pan-European transport policy

3.1 Major developments have taken place in Europe over the
last two years. In May 2004, ten new Member States joined the
European Union. Europe has renewed and strengthened its
commitment towards the Western Balkan countries and it has
developed a new Neighbourhood Policy. The Commission's
initiative to recast trans-European networks and press ahead
with the development of the corridors was, on the one hand,
directed inwards, as it reflected the 2004 enlargement and also
brought some of the experience gained with the corridors to
bear in the TEN-T policy within the EU (4). On the other hand,
it was also a matter of extending the key transport routes in line
with — and indeed also going beyond the scope of — the new
European neighbourhood policy.

3.2
In 2002 the European Commission reviewed the state of
implementation of the TEN-T network and pan-European corri-
dors. The findings generally pointed towards serious delays in
the upgrading of the major axes. A new approach was taken,
with more clearly identified priorities and fuller commitment in
relation to the countries concerned. As a result, three different
regions have been identified: the European Union in its future
shape of 27 Member States, the Western Balkans (5) and the
remaining countries and regions bordering the EU 27. In each
of the three cases high level groups were commissioned by the
European Commission to recommend priority projects or axes,
implementation measures and monitoring mechanisms.

(3) The report on the conference can be found in Appendix I.
(4) Based on the expert group headed by Karel van Miert, which submitted

its report in June 2003.

(5) For reasons to do with policy coherence, Western Balkans is occasion-
ally dealt with as part of South East Europe, which practically include
— apart from the former Yugoslavia — Romania, Bulgaria and even
more occasionally Turkey and Republic of Moldova.

The first exercise of this kind was carried out for the EU
3.3
27 by the High Level Group coordinated by Karel Van Miert
(2002-2003). Three quarters (3/4) of the pan-European corri-
dors fell under scrutiny and the Group came up with 30 trans-
port infrastructure projects, to cover both the ‘old’ and ‘new’
the
Member States,
EU 27 Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T). Apart
from this, the Group recommended inter alia new financial and
legislative provisions to support
the
TEN-T, new project-based coordination mechanisms. The High
Level Group recommendations led to the revision of the TEN-T
guidelines in April 2004.

represented the priorities

the implementation of

that

for

3.4
The Western Balkans has offered a less homogenous base
for regional policy making than the EU 27: the diversity in the
status of the countries vis-à-vis the EU, the intra-regional rela-
tions, as well as the dynamics in the relations with the EU, has
led to continual policy adjustments. The past conflict left the
Balkans in deep need of stability — economic, social and poli-
tical — and therefore in even greater need of external assistance.
To this extent,
the regional approach towards the Western
Balkans has a particular added value. The EU has been a fervent
adept of this approach not only in the transport sector but also
in the efforts to set up a common free trade area and a
common energy market.

transport

3.4.1
In 2001, the European Commission issued a strategy
for regional transport system in South East Europe as a multi-
infrastructure network. The strategy was
modal
followed by two studies — TIRS and REBIS (6) which defined
the CORE network and made recommendations
regarding
investment and financing. This process created the basis for
setting up a Secretariat based in Belgrade, called the South East
Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO). SEETO is not only
meant to support and coordinate infrastructure development,
but also to function as a contact point for queries from social
and economic players. This facility is being used more and
more. The EESC permanent study group is also expressly
mentioned in this context.

‘soft projects’ — representing measures

3.4.2
The first Five Year Multi Annual Plan covering the
period 2006 — 2010 was signed in November 2005 and iden-
tified approximately 150 projects. Additionally, up to 20 so-
called regional
to
accompany the process of regional networks implementation
are listed in the plan. Given the serious financial limitations, the
number of priority infrastructure projects has recently been
drastically reduced to 22. The process coordinated by SEETO
can be compared to the former TINA process in the EU, where
the regional network is to be finalised in addition to the main
axis/corridors.

(6) (Regional Balkans Infrastructure Study — Transport).

C 318/182

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

The work of the High Level Group (HLG 2) headed by
3.5
Loyola de Palacio looked at the further development of trunk
routes to the EU's neighbouring countries and far beyond. Four
land routes and a navigable route were defined (7). These were
intended not only to represent the main international links but
also to strengthen regional cohesion. The HLG 2 has also put
forward various proposals for horizontal measures, such as
speeding up border
improving traffic/transport
safety, and securing better interoperability in rail transport. The
HLG 2 also recommends closer coordination and a more
forceful approach by replacing the MoUs with binding agree-
ments. Based on the recommendations, the Commission intends
to publish a communication on its plans sometime in July or
September. The permanent study group feels the Commission
must adequately address horizontal issues.

formalities,

exchanging information about

participate and collaborate, and it has noted that this participa-
just
tion is also much appreciated. These meetings do not
involve
in
recent progress
construction plans, but also involve the discussion of funda-
mental and conceptual issues in the field of pan-European trans-
port infrastructure policy. A number of structural innovations
are of relevance here: in order to facilitate implementation of
key sections of TEN projects, the Commission has designated
special coordinators for six projects (8). Provision has also been
made for setting up an agency aimed at improving financing
and execution of key projects, not least in view of the higher
volumes of funding involved. Finally, there is an ongoing debate
on a legally binding form of cross-border cooperation which
would go beyond existing MoUs.

3.6
The pace of work in the corridors and transport areas
has been varied (See Appendix II for details). With the exception
of the Barents-Euro-Arctic Region the transport areas have yet
to make their mark, a situation which has changed little since
the areas were set up in 1997 (at the Helsinki Conference).
There has been an increasing trend for cooperation within the
corridors to spill over into regional networks as well. The EESC
considers this an altogether positive development. Over the last
two years, there has still been no progress in terms of financial
and technical backing for organisational activity. The Commis-
sion has failed to respond to the frequent calls for more
support. However, one decisive change is that, given the work
of the two high-level groups and the Commission's conclusions,
the corridor model has in practice become obsolete. Within the
EU,
the priorities are determined in line with the 30 TEN
projects. Outside the EU, the corridors have been ‘replaced’ by
the five new axes or have been continued under different
names. However, there is clearly sufficient reason to press ahead
with work on them. The steering committees have established
themselves amongst the transport ministries involved as impor-
tant platforms for contact and cooperation, and they have devel-
oped an identity (brand) of their own. They are continuing work
on important links which are not covered by any other cross-
border initiatives, such as priority TEN projects without desig-
nated special coordinators.

3.7
The Commission has stepped up its support for coordi-
nation, and the regular meetings held once or twice a year with
all corridor chairs and various other leading players provide a
key forum for exchange. The EESC is always welcome to

(7) The routes are as follows:

— South-west axis: connecting south-west Europe to the centre of
including Switzerland, and the ‘Transmaghreb’ axes

Europe,
between Morocco and Egypt.

— South-east axis: connecting the centre of Europe to the Caucusus
and the Caspian Sea, as well as the Middle East and Egypt, via the
Balkans and Turkey.

— Central axis: connecting the centre of Europe to the Ukraine and

the Black Sea, as well as Russia and Siberia.

— North-east axis: connecting the EU to Norway, as well as Russia

and Transsiberia.

— Motorways of the sea: connecting the Baltic Sea, the Atlantic
Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, as well as the
coastal countries. Extension to the Suez canal is also planned.

4. Organising the work of the permanent study group —

activities

4.1
In line with the re-orientation of pan-European transport
policy, the permanent study group no longer focuses only on
work in the corridors, but also on priority projects within the
trans-European transport network (9) as well as recent planning
activity by the expert group headed by Loyola de Palacio, such
as the idea of a special link between Spain and Africa. In discus-
sions with the appropriate departments of DG TREN,
it
emerged that EESC input into the socio-economic evaluation of
completed or planned TEN projects would be appreciated.

4.2
Around the turn of the year 2004/2005, the Commis-
sion began preliminary work on a second expert report headed
by Loyola de Palacio. At this early stage, the permanent study
group had an opportunity to make its views known on funda-
mental issues (10). The following observations were made: envir-
onmental protection should play a greater role; the requirement
for intermodality should be translated more effectively into
practice — this could be chosen as a separate evaluation
criterion; and there should be more of a focus on links to
regional transport networks. Finally, the permanent study group
highlighted the importance of horizontal aspects such as harmo-
nising legislation, safety issues, etc., and emphasised that these
aspects would have to be discussed more fully and in greater
detail if the intention was to push forward implementation of
its written
the

objectives.

transport

policy

EU's

In

(8) I.

Berlin-Palermo rail link (Mr van Miert).

II. Lisbon-Madrid-Tours/Montpellier

high-speed

rail

link

(Mr

Davignon).

III. Lyon-Turin-Budapest-Ukrainian border rail link (Ms de Palacio).
IV. Paris-Bratislava rail link (Mr Balzazs).
V.
VI. Rail corridors and the ETRMS (Mr Vinck).

‘Rail Baltica’ Warsaw-Helsinki rail link (Mr Telicka).

(9) Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004, OJ 30.4.2004 and 7.7.2004.
(10) Letter to E. Thielmann, DG TREN of 15.12.2004.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/183

reply (11), the Commission stressed that it would in future, pay
closer attention to the call
transport
networks in particular.

for links to regional

4.3
In tandem with the second expert report, the Commis-
sion also took stock of work to date in the corridors. The
permanent study group also provided a brief assessment, and in
particular advocated greater scope for questions of economic
and social cohesion and for consultation. The study group felt it
was equally important to strengthen the steering committees
and ensure that they were more effectively networked to make
in place more binding and to monitor
the arrangements
progress, something which above all falls within the remit of
the steering committees themselves.
the
questionnaire the Commission drew four important conclu-
sions (12): the corridor concept had proved its worth and would
be retained; there was a need to act on operational issues and to
take socio-economic factors into account; it was worth moni-
toring progress more closely, but such monitoring should be
based on the specific characteristics of each corridor; the posi-
tive impact of the corridors could only be estimated in the long
term, but the more binding the nature of the cooperation, the
more successful that impact will be.

In its evaluation of

4.4
the ten
Cooperation with the steering committees of
transport corridors has continued to be of importance over the
past two years. For practical and staffing reasons, active partici-
pation in steering committee meetings could not be maintained
at the same level as in previous years. However, contacts have
always remained in place, not least because the coordination
sessions held roughly twice a year in Brussels ensure regular
meetings and an exchange of experience. The permanent study
group has introduced a system whereby specific responsibility
for individual corridors is allocated through an equitable divi-
sion of the workload. This will, in future, mean more practical
commitment and greater continuity in the group's own ranks.

The opinion on ‘The role of railway stations in an
4.5
enlarged EU’ (13) was relatively broad in scope; it was integrated
into the work of the permanent study group and adopted in
February 2006. European transport policy should pay closer
attention to the preservation, use and design of railway stations
— particularly from the safety point of view — as shop
windows for passenger rail transport and as service centres in
the transport network.

In the period under review, the permanent study group
4.6
organised two external events:
in November 2004, the EESC
participated in a memorable train journey along Corridor X,

(11) Letter from E. Thielmann of 21 January 2005.
(12) Evaluation presented at the coordination meeting on 21 April 2005 in

Brussels.

(13) EESC opinion on The role of railway stations in the cities/towns of the

enlarged Europe, OJ No. C 88 of 11.4.2006, p. 9.

organised by the ‘ARGE Korridor X’ cooperative, which ran
from Villach in Austria via Zagreb in Croatia to Sarajevo in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. This event illustrated the need for more
efficient rail links and for cross-border cooperation between the
region's railways. To attract the attention of the media, activities
were organised at the various stops. The second external event
took place in Bialystok, Poland, with the focus on the regional
impact of Corridor I planning on nature conservation, safety
and the quality of life in north-eastern Poland. In many ways,
the Bialystok conference was a definite success and can be seen
as the highlight of the permanent study group's work. Evaluation
of the event will therefore be included in the next chapter on
‘main outcomes’.

5. Main outcomes of work in the 2004-2006 period

5.1
From 15 to 17 November 2005, the permanent study
group held a conference with an open hearing in Bialystok, at
the invitation of the Marshal of the Podlaskie voivodship. This
was accompanied by talks and visits to areas in the vicinity of
pan-European transport Corridor I, the ‘Via und Rail Baltica’.
The aim was to discuss with regional government representa-
tives,
the various social and economic interest groups and
bodies responsible for transport policy at regional and national
level how best to ensure that Corridor I development dovetails
with regional interests and the needs of environmental protec-
tion. The EESC delegation was accompanied by a representative
of the European Commission with special responsibilities for
the Rail Baltica. All of the meetings took place in a uniquely
hospitable atmosphere. The visit was not only important from
the perspective of transport policy, but was also a success for
both sides in terms of ‘communicating Europe’.

5.1.1
This conference brought diverse stakeholders together:
environmentalists, local politicians, railway entrepreneurs, local
residents and works council representatives, and in practical
terms, it forged a tangible link between the region and the EU/
Brussels. It brought home the various ways in which transport
corridors have an impact: the strain on people living along
transit routes, expectations of an economic upturn resulting
from transport links, the weaknesses in public passenger trans-
the natural
port and regional rail transport, preservation of
assets of the region, concerns about job losses, financial difficul-
ties not to mention the red tape, that could only be recognised
as such and overcome by coming together in this way. The
lessons of
the conference were many-faceted and extremely
instructive for all stakeholders, and, ultimately, new approaches
for dealing with the problems also emerged.

C 318/184

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

The Via Baltica in north-eastern Poland can serve as an
5.1.2
illustration of the issues to be dealt with in an integrated pan-
European transport policy. One of the main problems is conges-
tion in the region from transit traffic and, on the other hand,
the urgent need for economic development which is generated
by the transport links but not by transit traffic. A second key
problem and also the region's main ‘asset’ is its unique natural
environment, which must be protected. Many helpful solutions,
which are not even necessarily more expensive, were identified
here.
taken due
account of the Rail Baltica, presenting an opportunity for the
representative of the EU coordinator to make the case for the
rail link. It became clear that only an integrated overall transport
strategy in the region could deal with the problems and thus
overcome the barriers to planning and implementing the Via
Baltica and Rail Baltica. The EESC will continue to support the
positive developments which were set in motion at the confer-
ence.

It emerged that regional planning had not

Cross-border cooperation between the transport minis-
5.2
tries of the individual states along the ‘corridors’ will in future
be replaced or superseded by the Commission initiative (see
section 3). In so doing, it is important to seize this opportunity
to pursue closer ‘one-stop’ coordination, instead of coordinating
two parallel processes as has been the case up to now. This

Brussels, 13 September 2006.

would also improve the basis for the implementation of key
transport policy aims. One problem which remains unresolved
is how to effectively make cross-border cooperation between EU
Member States and third countries more binding. Apart from
enhanced contractual relations, the EESC feels that the best way
for this to happen is by concentrating available EU funds. For
example, there should be a concentration on priority projects
even within the priority axes, and full use should be made of
possible co-financing of 20 % for projects within the EU. At
present, subsidies are barely at the level of 2-5 %.

5.3
Finally, there is the problem of combining infrastructure
and operational issues, an area which has always been important
for the EESC and one which remains underdeveloped. Although
there have been regular and frequent pledges on this issue, little
progress has been made due to the lack of a separate implemen-
tation procedure in this area. The hope that transport policy
objectives would more or less automatically tie in with ongoing
infrastructure development has not been fulfilled over the last
few years. Transport policy will, unfortunately, no longer be
shaped by large conferences, as in the past; in future, the key
role should, therefore, be played by regions, where all
issues
come together in practice and where it is vital to have an under-
standing of the pan-European context. This observation is borne
out by the experience of the Bialystok conference.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND