• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

30.4.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/35 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and neighbouring countries - sustainable mobility - financing’ (2004/C 108/05) On 17 July 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and neighbouring countries – sustainable mobility – financing. 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 24 November 2003. The rappor- teurs were Mrs Alleweldt, Mr Levaux and Mr Ribbe. At its 405th plenary session on 28 and 29 January (meeting of 28 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to two, with three abstentions. Foreword in European policy in this area. The TEN section was therefore given the task of drawing up an own-initiative opinion on Preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and neighbouring countries – sustainable mobility – financing. On 8 April 2003, in a letter from Mr Umberto Vattani, Ambas- Owing to the complexity of the topic, it was decided to sador and Permanent Representative of Italy to the European appoint three rapporteurs (1), each dealing with one of the Union, the Council asked the European Economic and Social three aspects with reference to ongoing work on the growth Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the Revision initiative and the work of the Van Miert group. The EESC's of the list of Trans-European Network (TEN) projects up to work on the subject is constantly evolving and this opinion, 2004. which is to be submitted before the end of the Italian presi- dency at its final meeting in early December, constitutes its current position. At the July plenary session, the Italian Minister for European Affairs, Mr Buttiglione, on behalf of the Council presidency, enlarged upon this request, explaining that it was one of the priorities of the Italian presidency to give new impetus to Euro- Alexander Graf von Schwerin pean transport infrastructure policy. He also expressed the hope that trans-European transport networks would not only President of the Section for Transport, Energy, facilitate the transport of goods, but would also strengthen ties between the communities along their routes. Infrastructure and the Information Society Meeting in Rome on 4 September 2003 at the invitation of the 1. Planning and neighbourhood policy – linking the trans- Italian Economic and Labour Council (CNEL) and in the European networks to the Helsinki pan-European corri- presence of Mr Buttiglione, the European Economic and Social dors Committee's Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society adopted its exploratory opinion and a joint resolution with Commission V of the CNEL on large-scale infrastructure projects and networks, emphasising that 1.1 One of the priorities of the Italian presidency has been to give new impetus to European transport infrastructure policy. Although Germany and France went on to point out that the priority of this growth initiative for Europe could not be transport infrastructure alone, but should also include — the development of trans-European transport networks is energy networks, telecommunications and R&D, the focus on essential for economic and social cohesion in the new transport infrastructure is entirely warranted. A review of Europe; and implementation of trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) over the last ten years makes for very sobering reading. Never- theless, the European Commission responded in October with a communication of its own taking appropriate account of the — coherent and sustainable development of European mobility broader approach and attempting to convert it into a strategy must be guaranteed so as to permit the balanced growth of for increasing employment (2). the continent's economic and social fabric. (1) Mrs Alleweldt: Planning and neighbouring countries Mr Ribbe: Sustainable mobility Mr Levaux: Financing (2) COM(2003) 579 final A European initiative for growth: Investing in Speaking on behalf of the Italian presidency, Mr Buttiglione networks and knowledge for growth and employment. Interim also wished to see the EESC more closely involved Report to the European Council C 108/36EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.4.2004 1.2 Faced with the forthcoming enlargement of the EU and 1.6 The three Pan-European Transport Conferences in the changes to Europe's geostrategic situation, the forecasts for Prague (1991), Crete (1994) and Helsinki (1997) (5) both paved transport trends as a whole and for individual modes, the the way for a network of trunk routes (corridors) and saw increasing sensitivity about the environmental impact and the agreement on transport policy objectives integrating principles poor prospects for growth in the EU with their implications for of energy, environment, social and economic policy so as to employment, the question must be whether we can meet the create fair and balanced competition conditions. This principle challenges if we do not make a clear move towards a joint of transport policy cooperation beyond the EU will also be European initiative on transport infrastructure development. needed in future and the European Commission should take This cannot involve simply perpetuating old solutions; we must account of it and support it in its work. have the courage to develop new instruments. 1.7 Infrastructure projects with European implications only 1.3 On 4 September 2003 in Rome, the EESC's TEN section fulfil their function if they respond to economic, political and adopted a joint resolution with Commission V of the Italian social interests. This requires more than just cooperation Economic and Labour Council (CNEL) on large-scale infrastruc- between transport ministers; it requires the involvement of ture projects and networks. Together they stressed the urgency business associations, transport companies, trade unions, and of developing the pan-European transport corridors in southern environmental and consumer organisations working across and eastern Europe, thereby improving the conditions for borders. And EU accession alone is not enough to achieve this. managing transport trends in the Mediterranean region, which, Rather, the reality of TEN implementation shows that the as pointed out in the ‘Naples Charter’, will take on a new impetus for implementing ‘European’ transport routes can only economic, social and strategic role following EU enlargement. be sustained by a socially-rooted appreciation of ‘Europe’ and a The network of existing corridors must be supplemented with consensus which takes account of economic and social realities. important links, such as the Adriatic link between corridors V The EESC proposes applying the experience gained with the and VIII. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure corridor concept to the TEN-T so as to utilise this potential. balance in addressing the interests of all regions, including depressed areas in the current Member States and Northern Europe. The development of this pan-European network requires more technical and organisational support, as well as financial backing. 1.8 This implies the following concrete requirements for the revision of the TEN guidelines, which includes further work in the corridors: 1.4 Ten years after the first ground-breaking moves to develop the TEN-T, the European Commission appointed a group of experts headed by Karel van Miert to carry out a review (3). It has emerged that not only is implementation of planned projects way behind the deadlines set, but also total public investment in transport has dwindled from 1.8 % of 1.8.1 TEN trunk routes and corridors must bind the internal GDP in 1980 to 1 % of GDP in the nineties. On 1 October market together, reinforcing economic and social relations with 2003, the European Commission then submitted a proposal to neighbouring countries. First and foremost, they must provide adapt the guidelines for the trans-European transport network optimum connections between economic centres and must also to the situation post-enlargement (4). The aim is to create a be assessed on those criteria. This has rarely been done to date, coherent network between new and old Member States and to if at all, and not in a very clear way. In some cases, individual speed up implementation of priority projects. The EESC wishes scientific studies are cited as evidence, but controversial find- to make a further contribution to these revamped TEN-T with ings and opinions are rarely mentioned. A realistic picture only the following comments. emerges when the opinions and experience of associations are added to the equation. To date, this recourse has been much underused by the Commission. 1.5 Trans-European transport routes are an essential prere- quisite for economic and social cohesion in the enlarged EU and beyond. The new and old EU neighbours must become 1.8.2 The intermodality of TENs and corridors must be partners in this project, which embraces the whole European ensured, which requires comprehensible quality criteria. Each continent and extends beyond. trunk route/each corridor will have to develop and implement this in its own way, so it is important to introduce a require- 3 ( ) Report by the high-level group on trans-European transport ment for intermodality blueprints and action plans. networks chaired by Karel van Miert, European Commission, 20.6.2003. (4) COM(2003) 564 final of 1.10.2003 (5) cf. EESC opinion OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p.100. 30.4.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/37 1.8.3 The environmentally friendly use of inland waterways mechanisms, such as a specific TEN/corridor environmental (cf. also 2.3.8) should be emphasised to a greater extent; this report or similar.

Load more

  10

Copy Link