Final Report

FINAL REPORT EURO-TENASSESS Contract No. ST-96-AM.601 Project Co-ordinator: ICCR -- The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences Partners: Halcrow Fox INRETS – Dept. of Transport Economy and Sociology PLANCO Consulting GmbH SYSTEMA – Systems Planning and Management Consultants Gruppo CLAS IVTB – Institute of Roads Transport and Road Planning ERRI – European Rail Research Institute TRT – Transporti e Territorio NEA – Transport Research and Training NEI – Netherlands Economic Institute UKO – Universität Köln LESEC – Laboratori Estudio Socials Enginyeria Civil ICCR – London Ltd. UWCC – School of Social and Administrative Studies Date: 15.08.1999 PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION UNDER THE TRANSPORT RTD PROGRAMME OF THE 4th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FINAL REPORT TENASSESS POLICY ASSESSMENT OF TEN AND COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 1 Editors Liana Giorgi (ICCR) Ronald J. Pohoryles (ICCR) Contributors Liana Giorgi (ICCR) Ronald J. Pohoryles (ICCR) Paul Freudensprung (ICCR) Marianne Olivier-Trigalo (INRETS) Sandrine Rui (INRETS) Ralf Risser (FACTUM) Barbara Adam (UWCC) Mark Brown (HALCROW FOX) Simon Milner (HALCROW FOX) Georg Dietrich Jansen (PLANCO) Ulf Schulte (PLANCO) Jürgen Grüner (PLANCO) FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 2 Table of Contents FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 3 FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 4 Partnership Project Co-ordinator ICCR -- The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences Partners HALCROW FOX INRETS – Dept. of Transport Economy and Sociology PLANCO Consulting GmbH SYSTEMA – Systems Planning and Management Consultants Gruppo CLAS IVTB – Institute of Roads Transport and Road Planning ERRI – European Rail Research Institute TRT – Transporti e Territorio UKO -- University of Köln NEA – Transport Research and Training NEI – Netherlands Economic Institute UKO – Universität Köln LESEC – Laboratori Estudio Socials Enginyeria Civil UWCC – School of Social and Administrative Studies FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 5 Executive Summary The ‘Europeanisation’ of transport policy raises new issues for the scientific field of evaluation. First, the ‘add-on’ of another level to the transport policy making, i.e. of the European level, has re-focused attention on the decision-making process and on the conflicts inherent to it as a fundamental part of policy analysis. Second, it made clear that policy assessment or evaluation is distinct from project and in particular infrastructure appraisal. Third, it necessitates a comprehensive consideration of developments in the transport sector in conjunction with developments in other policy arenas. In other words, Europeanisation has initiated a re-thinking process; the issues thus raised are not necessarily new – yet they suddenly acquire a sense of urgency and are seen in a new light. The TENASSESS project has been part of this re-thinking process. It does not provide definitive answers to all of the questions raised above, but a basis for analysing ongoing changes in the policy as well as in the evaluation fields. In TENASSESS, the theme of policy-making has been at the centre of considerations. The study of the policy process is important for any assessment exercise that directly or indirectly deals with policy analysis. Without knowledge of how policy is made, including of the conflicting interests it entails, it is not possible to interpret the results of impact assessment exercises or understand the significance of certain impacts for specific impact groups or for policy more generally. More importantly, without knowledge of the policy process, it is not possible to provide advice to policy-makers, less so to develop decision support tools. Last but not least, knowledge of the policy process guards against the false or manipulative exploitation of research results and can thus contribute to a better interaction between science and policy. In TENASSESS the study of policy processes had a twofold objective: the first objective was to understand these better for the reasons stated above; the second was to collect empirical material for the development of decision support tools. Two such tools were developed by TENASSESS: the TENASSESS Policy Assessment (PAM) tool; and the TENASSESS Barrier Model. Both the TENASSESS PAM and the TENASSESS Barrier Models are tools that assist rational thinking. The TENASSESS PAM helps assess the degree of congruence between any one project’s objectives and that of transport policy from the perspective of different actors’ viewpoints – in that it provides an interface between project appraisal and policy assessment. The TENASSESS Barrier Model helps identify and anticipate barriers likely to occur during the FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 6 implementation process of any transport policy initiative. It is a dynamic model which can be used in an interactive manner to assist planning and which helps make planners and policy-makers aware of the consequences of their actions in particular planning contexts. The main findings of the TENASSESS project can be summarised as follows: 1. Many of the problems encountered in implementing the European Common Transport Policy relate to the variation in the regulatory environments in the field of transport across Member States. The following were identified as of specific importance: ?? the variation in the distribution of administrative responsibility and competencies at the national level; ?? the variation in the degree of planning of transport policy in the form of master plans but also assessment and/or evaluation frameworks; ?? the variation in the degree of centralisation or decentralisation, especially with respect to the role assigned to the regions, hence the process of territorialisation, and ?? the variation in the degree of negotiation with relevant actors, including citizens’ movements or the public at large. At the same time there are some general harmonising trends across all four dimensions which can, in part, be attributed to the influence of the European Union: i.e. towards greater sharing of responsibility and stronger co-ordination at the national administrative level; towards the development of a planning structure that fits the requirements of European CTP; towards the devolution of power to the regions, that is, decentralisation; and towards a stronger emphasis on negotiation at all levels. 2. Three general conflict areas which are common to all European countries can be identified. They comprise: ?? Conflicts about competencies: Despite the principle of subsidiarity, the borders between the four established political levels – local, regional, national and European – remain diffuse, giving rise to conflicts about competencies. Problems in co-ordination arise by the fact that the European Commission represents neither the sole, nor the first, attempt at harmonisation at policy level. Despite the fact that over the years there have gradually emerged co-ordination or consultation procedures facilitated by a narrowing down of institutional agendas be it in terms of geographical scope, in terms of mode or in terms of types of impacts FINAL REPORT TENASSESS 7 problems remain as agendas unavoidably overlap and co-ordination is itself a long process of institutional learning. ?? Thematic conflict ‘environment vs. economic development’: On the one hand there are policies concerned with reducing the negative impacts of traffic for the environment and society and even with reducing transport volume per se; on the other hand there are the policies to improve transport flows in order to further enhance economic development. Objectives are generally set in both directions, but the incompatibility or lack of direct congruence displayed between the two is often the source of fierce debate about effectiveness and equity in the medium- to long- term. ?? Conflicts related to the re-structuring of the transport market. Currently, and with very few exceptions, deregulation and the privatisation of the transport market is a generally agreed-upon policy agenda. Nevertheless a distinction can be drawn between those actors in favour of a swift transformation towards an open market system, and those supporting a slower pace and longer phase-out periods. These conflicts can for the most part be explained by considering the competition patterns among modes. The re-structuring of the transport market is also inevitably connected with some significant labour re-structuring processes. 3. It is possible to distinguish four ‘ideal type’ transport policy frameworks. ?? The traditional transport planning approach assumes that transport primarily is there to serve structural inequalities as reflected in particular at regional level. For this policy framework, the goals of regional cohesion and development are of particular relevance and guide transport policy-making, primarily infrastructure investment. ?? A ‘modern’ variant of the transport planning approach emerged with the onset of privatisation. Under this approach, planning and infrastructure investment are still important, only the planner ought to be the private economic actor, less so the state for which within-sector efficiency becomes of utmost significance. ?? The liberal market approach to transport development considers it important to regulate the transport sector through primarily economic instruments. Pricing instruments and taxation are under this scheme of particular relevance. So is liberalisation and privatisation when associated with greater accountability and transparency in operations. ?? The ecological approach

Load more