col laboration and coordination here in Spain is an of effi cient regional public transport systems.” integrated maritime cooperation and R+D networks issue which still needs to be resolved and has and “28. Improvement of co-operation between /Innovation. hardly been developed. On the subject of problems transport policies at EU, national and regional level”. 17 To achieve this greater legal base referred to in coordinating policies which have a bearing on the (ESDP, p. 28) the document, the Third Report on Economic and territory and the limited expectations faced by the 12 MOPTMA = Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Social Cohesion (EC, 2004) envisaged creating Spanish composite state model, I would also like Transporte y Medio Ambiente (Spanish Ministry for two new instruments, the New Neighbourhood to make note of two publications by Romero (2005 Public Works, Transport and the Environment). Instrument (NNI) and the Cross-border Regional and 2006). 13 Transport network nodes become a reference Authority, later renamed as the European grouping 9 Territorial policy is a public matter; the objective point for both industry strategies (at the level of territorial Cooperation (EGTC) to make it clear is to produce a territorial model (a physical of production and logistics) as well as territorial that it not only dealt with trans-frontier cooperation confi guration of the territory) in accordance with organisation by administrations that have but also transnational and interregional cooperation. the needs and requirements of the population. jurisdiction in matters of town and country The EGTC is seen as “…a cooperation instrument The realisation of this policy must fall mainly to planning. at Community level for the creation of cooperative the instruments of territorial planning themselves, 14 The issue of fi nancing infrastructure plans opens up groupings in Community territory, invested with but also to other types of plans, basically regional, other questions of major importance, such as the legal personality, ... An EGTC should be able to act, infrastructure and environmental development role that has to be played by private initiatives, the either for the purpose of implementing territorial plans. After the various parties have diagnosed and relations between the public and private sectors, cooperation programmes or projects co-fi nanced by defi ned the desired future vision, strategic territorial and also, in the public sphere, of the relations the Community, ... or for the purpose of carrying planning must set out the general lines of operation between the different levels of government out actions of territorial cooperation which are and the means with which to achieve and assess (fi nancing models, fi scal federalism, etc). at the sole initiative of the Member States and them. As for plans, these are the instruments 15 For further details regarding territorial cooperation their regional and local authorities with or without used to pursue given objectives concerning certain initiatives at a European level, see Farinós and Payá a fi nancial contribution from the Community.” fundamental aspects that will contribute to reaching (2004). On relations between territorial cooperation (Regulation (EC) 1082/2006) the global goal (for example, infrastructures as a and cohesion, see Farinós and Payá (2005). 18 The recent decision by the French government way of ensuring the functioning of the required Regarding the concept of territorial cohesion, see serves as a good example: they have decided to settlements’ model and land use). In the case of Farinós (2005). postpone until 2030 the link construction work that territorial plans of a more integrated nature, they 16 Although the future Objective 3 “European would connect high speed trains from both sides tend to be more “tactical”, renouncing bearing more territorial cooperation: promoting the harmonious of the Pyrenees (Serra Ramoneda, 2006), despite operative and setting out their proposals, a degree and balanced development of the Union territory” the many, diverse and reiterated efforts (Arco of specifi city which is more present in the case of (EC, 2004), only represents 4% of the funds (to be Latino, Comunidad de los Pirineos, meetings and sectorial plans. distributed between trans-frontier, trans-national agreements between cities on both sides of the 10 When I say the best option I am not referring and inter-regional cooperation), it translates as frontier) to stress this situation. to the one which technically might be the most the opportunity to receive additional fi nancing 19 See the ESPON 1.1.1 Project Final Report; ad visable, but rather the one that correlates and in the new programming period as well as the forges agreement between the different interested possibility of modifying not only the objective but parties, even though the administration might be also territorial development planning methods. the body which directs and ensures the process. If we remember that one of the ETS guidelines THE MEDITERRANEAN AXIS AND If, according to mathematical logic, the shortest was precisely that of consolidating these kinds of THE TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT distance between two points is a straight line, spaces by promoting territorial and, in particular, NETWORKS (TEN-T): A HISTORY OF obviously orography and the (until now given a trans-national cooperation, and we relate this idea FAILING TO MEET. From the Essen lower priority) interests of the inhabitants of the to the objective of territorial competitivity, then territories through which the infrastructure has we can better understand the nature of the future summit (1994) to the external dimension to pass can mean that a “technically perfect” Objective 3. (2006) route is not viable. A good example of this is the When it comes to trans-frontier cooperation and controversy that arose when it came to deciding those regions where the conditions for trans- Josep Vicent Boira Maiques the route for the last stretch that fi nalised the frontier cooperation already exist, funds will Madrid-Valencia motorway which resulted in have to be directed towards priorities that could a confrontation between central, autonomous generate added value to trans-frontier operations by Introduction (Castile-La Mancha and Valencia) and local bringing about a transition from simple economic governments. This confl ict leads to an excessive penetration from both sides of the border to a The focus of this article is to provide hold up in the completion of the motorway and also true trans-frontier economic system. To achieve a critical review of the role of the had corresponding political repercussions (within this aim the following are considered necessary: the political parties and in the elections). improving competitivity resulting from innovation, Mediterranean axis (essentially comprising 11 “There is a risk that investments in secondary R+D, setting up material networks (infrastructures) the autonomous region of Valencia, networks and their integration into the TENs and non-material networks (services), and Catalonia and the Balearic Isles, with the cannot be carried out in time, or cannot be carried developing the feeling of belonging to a trans- addition of Murcia, Andalusia and the out at all, if the completion of higher ranking frontier community (redesigning the mental maps). French region of Languedoc-Roussillon) networks is given greater priority. To avoid a relative Territorial connectivity and integration are thus in the overall trans-European transport deterioration of service quality in those EU areas variables positively related to territorial cohesion. networks’ (TEN-T) map; its role and how which are not directly integrated into the Trans- In turn, trans-national cooperation provides a it has been integrated -if in fact this is European Networks, the extension of secondary strategic profi le for achieving major EU territorial the case. In addition, I shall evaluate networks should not be treated as less important. objectives, contributing to better EU territorial the reaction of a number of public and This also includes the modernisation of regional inte gration. One of the EU tasks is to facilitate private governing bodies, companies transport services. In doing this, the utilised means trans-European integration stimulating the and institutions in these regions, to the of transport should be adapted to the specifi c development or conservation of zones and European Union’s plans to extend trans- local and regional circumstances (conventional rail networks which are important for Europe. The European networks to neighbouring network, buses, regional airports, etc.). Apart from mid-term evalua tion by Interreg IIIB, carried out in countries. this, the secondary networks can contribute to 2004, already emphasised the crucial role of trans- managing the traffi c fl ows on the TENs and tapping national cooperation programmes and projects Therefore, I shall begin with an overall the critical potential for large scale links. In this for European territorial integration and cohesion. view of the European transport networks respect, the timetable for linking the secondary It has also been stated that cities and regions networks to the trans-European networks can be make use of trans-national cooperation as a siting and how they have evolved since the crucial for their development.” (recommendation factor, attracting investments and integrating them mid 1990s, and end with an analysis of 113 of the European Spatial Development into the networks (Conference on Trans-national the relationship between these networks Perspective, p.27) Cooperation, Berlin, November 2004). In these and their evolution, particularly in the light As regards this issue the very same document spaces a series of structuring projects would be of the latest developments: the external defi ned two clear policy options: “24. developed, among which the Commision proposes: dimension of the TEN-T (2006) (that is its Strengthening secondary transport networks trans-European transport corridors, natural hazard extension to EU neighbouring countries), and their links with TENs, including development prevention, water management at river basin level, and the allegations in documents and

78 / Papers 44 / opinions that were stirred up among transport networks (road transport and In effect, this High Level Group, which last specifi c bodies and institutions from the navigable waterways). However, it was not met on June 3, 1994, drew up a report which Mediterranean axis. until the 1994 Essen European Council that served as a basis and model for restructuring a list of 14 major priority projects in this projects in later years. Created at the request To begin with I have to point out that the fi eld was not drawn up. From this point on, of the European Council of 1993 to the Mediterranean axis as such does not exist. the path embarked upon has not been an Commission, this group brought together It does not exist from an administrative easy one, with agreements reached by the a representative from each member state; or bureaucratic point of view, yet it does Commission and reports from the ad-hoc acting on behalf of Spain were J.A. Zaragoza, have a very real economic basis, with a groups it has created. Secretary of State for Territorial Policies and demonstrable fl ow of exchanges and shared Public Works, and the minister José Borrell geo-economic interests (Boira, 2003 a, b, (who held the post of Public Works since c). This distinction between an “imagined” 2. From the fi rst document on European 1991). The ensuing report listed 34 projects territory but with “tangible” bases, and a classifi ed into three groups according to “potential” territory with “real” economic high-speed rail systems (1990) to the which stage they were at. The fi rst group dynamics, is one of its weaknesses and, Essen priority projects (1994) (11 projects) comprised those projects which perhaps, one of the explanations for its were almost completed or were going to near insignifi cant role and infl uence on On December 17, 1990, the European begin within two years. The second group the map drawn up by the proposal for Community Council passed a resolution1 (10 projects) comprised initiatives whose trans-European transport networks (TEN- which included various considerations on acceleration seemed possible and would not T), at least up until 2010, when it will be the European high-speed train network, go beyond 1997, while the last group (13 reviewed. This explains the reality of the ruling in favour of the need to set up an projects) comprised plans that required more Mediterranean axis’ exclusion from the inter-operative network and pointing out, for time to be carried out or further studies. As trans-European transport network, however the fi rst time, what it considered to be key regards Spain, there were three projects it also explains its predicament. The inability stretches in this new European network in this list: the high-speed train Madrid- to articulate a combined response to (see table 2). Two of the fourteen stretches Barcelona-Perpignan and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax transport network designs that do not take included are relevant to the Iberian and the Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (fi rst into account the needs of this macro-region Peninsula: Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan and group) and the Valencia-Saragossa-Somport is illustrated by the corpus of allegations Oporto-Lisbon-Madrid and Vitoria-Dax (two road corridor (third group). It should be and reports put before Europe by different options of the same stretch). According to noted that the high-speed project had administrations and institutions from the Ellwanger and Wilckens (1994), together already appeared in 1990 in the Council autonomous communities concerned (in with this proposal, a “Master Plan for the document relating to the development of particular Catalonia and Valencia, but also European High-speed rail Network 2010” a European high-speed train network. As Murcia and Andalusia), as we shall see was approved, part of which is illustrated I see it, the Christophersen document is later. Thus, the Mediterranean axis has by map 1. of key importance, as the inclusion at the materialised as a result of an accumulation highest priority level of the high-speed train of testimonies, but there are no stable Although this document and list refer only beginning in Madrid and running both to the structures (not even of an interim nature) to to high-speed rail systems, some of these Mediterranean and to the Atlantic (along with provide it with a tangible form or support. ended up being added to later lists used by the Valladolid motorway also “central”) has the High Level Groups and Councils. It was subsequently determined all the European in this way that a fact was consolidated: Union’s lists of priorities regarding TEN-Ts in 1. Trans-European Networks and the the infl uence of high-speed transport Spain practically until 2006. Mediterranean Axis in subsequent European infrastructure maps, perhaps at the cost of overlooking As the Christophersen report refl ects, The concept of Trans-European Networks to a certain degree less visible yet key the fi nal list came as much from a small (TEN) was already acknowledged in the passenger and merchandise transport list drawn up in the 1993 White Paper on Maastricht Treaty (1992) as an instrument infrastructures, and, in the case of the growth, competitivity and employment, as, designed to strengthen economic and Mediterranean axis, even more useful than and especially, the priorities promoted by the social cohesion and allow the free high-speed passenger transport. member states2. In effect, some priorities movement of goods and people. It was appeared succinctly in the 1993 White later taken up again in the 1997 Treaty of The next step was at the Brussels Paper on growth: “new strategic trans- Amsterdam and the 2001 Treaty of Niza European Council in December 1993, frontier (Brenner rail link, Lyons-Turin rail and other offi cial documents that modifi ed when two High Level Groups (HLG) were link, Paris-Barcelona-Madrid rail link, Berlin- the basic European Union treaty. created: one dedicated to information Warsaw-Moscow motorway link), improving networks presided over by Commissioner connections between the various transport In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council Bangemann, and the other dedicated to modes (…) and improving interoperability gave a major political boost to TENs transport and energy networks, under and effi ciency of networks…”3. by recognising their potential to create the charge of Vice-President Henning employment and promote economic growth. Christophersen. The latter drew up a report Based on the Christophersen Report, the Decisions were made to promote trans- which was used to defi ne the fi rst formal European Councils of Corfu and Essen (both European networks in three areas: energy, list of strategic projects for trans-European held in 1994) ratifi ed the lists of priorities telecommunications and transport. European transport networks; a list which was ratifi ed mentioned above. That is they limited policy continued to give importance to in 1994 by the European Councils of Corfu themselves to those selected in the fi rst the TENs through periodically revised (June) and Essen (December). In effect, on group and, therefore, focused on, in the case Community guidelines, and in 2003 launched the island of Corfu in 1994, the go-ahead for Spain, the high-speed links from Madrid the growth initiative whose objective was was given for eleven strategic projects and on the Lisbon-Valladolid motorway. As to accelerate public and private investment for Europe plus three originating from of Corfu 1994, the Valencia-Aragon axis in network infrastructures with programmes initiatives already begun, or about to begin, disappeared from the offi cial documents such as “Quick-Start” for priority projects. in Northern EC countries, Ireland and the published by the European Union. As for transport networks (TEN-T), its history UK. The origin of the eleven projects that is relatively easy to establish (see table were approved in Corfu (and later in Essen) 1), at least regarding the most relevant set out by the HLG of 2003 and 2005 thus 3. From the EC Decision 1.692 (1996) to milestones. In 1990, the possibility of had their precedent, i.e. the Christophersen the De Palacio High-Level Group (2006) coordinating European high-speed train Group. Resorting to this kind of ad hoc networks had already been explored, and commission (three in ten years) has been a There were two important events in 1996 fi rst-draft plans adopted for combined feature of the development of the TEN-Ts. when it comes to understanding the

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND TERRITORY. THE MEDITERRANEAN ARC / 79 development of the TEN-Ts. Firstly, in July put an end to the rail bottleneck between the De Palacio Group was not assigned of the same year, the European Parliament Montpellier and Nîmes, which will allow the mission of reforming the TEN-T, the and the Council adopted Decision 1.692/96/ for guaranteeing the continuity of a rail establishment of axes of communication EC concerning EC strategic guidelines for motorway between Seville and the north between the European Union and its the development of the trans-European of Europe” (italics are mine)4 (see map neighbouring countries (especially the transport network, which comprised a long 2). In April 2004, Decision 1.692 was north of Africa as regards how it affects the list of projects of common interest. This modifi ed again extending the period for Mediterranean axis), meant a consolidation Decision was amended in May 2001 to implementing some of the projects to 2020 of the “map” that defi nes the future of include European inland ports and inter- (it had previously stated 2010) and defi ning transport in Europe and documentary modal terminals, as well as to modify 30 priority projects in the light of the Van evidence of the corresponding insignifi cant one or other specifi c priority project. Miert report which I shall look at next. role of the Mediterranean axis since the Decision 1.692 was once again subject 1990s. The De Palacio Group presented to amendment in October 2001 and April In effect, the most important revision of its report on December 7, 2005, which 2004. the TEN-T was carried out when, at the clearly established some connexions end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, between the TEN-T projects and initiatives Among the modifi ed projects in 1996 a second High Level Group on transport to be carried out in the north of Africa to we fi nd number 8, which affects Spain. infrastructures was created by the improve communications. Analysis of the At the Dublin European Council in European Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, maps included in this report once again December 1996, and at the request of the presided over by the ex-Commissioner revealed the non-inexistent role of the governments of Portugal and Spain (the Karel Van Miert. Its objective was clear: “to Mediterranean axis (see map 4). Among latter then under the José María Aznar identify the priority projects for the trans- the work carried out by this group, in administration as of May the same year), European transport networks in an enlarged April 2005 a meeting had been called priority project number 8 (the Lisbon- European Union”. with external assistance to evaluate Valladolid motorway) becomes a “multi- the strategic lines of this report. When modal link between Portugal and Spain The results of the research by the Van the report was presented there was a and the rest of Europe”, thus adding to the Miert Group was presented in the summer second public comment period, and it project’s aspirations and magnitude. of 2003 and classifi ed priorities into four was then that a wave of criticism arose major lists: List 0, List 1, List 2 and List 3. from a variety of bodies and institutions The 1996 Decision 1.692 clearly increases The fi rst group, List 0, comprised those from the communities that comprise the the number of projects for the fi rst projects already underway and which were Mediterranean axis. time since Essen to 30, with a series of forecast to be completed before 2010 (in inherent ramifi cations for each one. As essence, the projects defi ned in Essen regards Spain (see table 3), we now fi nd 1994 and Dublin 1996). List 1 comprised 4. The reactions to the 2003 and 2005 two already familiar projects: number 3 the priority projects forecast to begin High Level Groups reports (the High-Speed train running from Madrid before 2010 (including the Galileo satellite to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean) and communication project). List 2 comprised The reports published by the Van Miert and number 8 (the old connexion between the long-term priority projects, and List De Palacio HLGs generated an irregular Lisbon and Valladolid - extensively 3 comprised other important projects for range of reactions. In the summer of 2003, modifi ed). In the case of the former, new territorial cohesion in Europe. None of the Valencian press —in particular the connexions were specifi ed, i.e. Lisbon/ these lists included the Mediterranean Valencian newspaper Levante-El Mercantil Oporto-Madrid. The Mediterranean axis corridor as such (see map 3). As I pointed Valenciano and the magazine El Temps—, as such —understood as running from the out earlier, in April 2004, the European published articles on this subject, including French border to Murcia or Andalusia— Parliament and the Council modifi ed the the opinions of experts on the subject only features as a general note about 1996 Decision 1.692 to establish the 30 and underlining the risk resulting from the the Mediterranean sea motorways and defi nitive projects, approved based on marginalisation of the Mediterranean axis the inter-operability of the high-speed rail the recommendations of the Van Miert in these published reports6. The resulting system in the Iberian Peninsula Madrid- Group. It was the confi rmation of the controversy, for example in the Catalan Levante and Mediterranean, with no priority projects that had emerged more weekly magazine El Temps, prompted the further references. than ten years earlier and in which the publication of a letter aimed at clarifying Mediterranean axis did not fi gure in a the situation sent by Gilles Gantelet, As I have stated before, the 1996 Decision unitary or cohesive manner. spokesperson for Loyola de Palacio, 1.692 was amended in 2001 (May and which attempted to demonstrate that the October) and in 2004. In May 2001 sea The last step to date which affects the Van Miert report did not marginalise the ports, inland ports and intermodal terminals Mediterranean axis and the TEN-T is Mediterranean axis7. It should be pointed were added to the list of projects and some the 2005 proposed extension of the out that there were no major reactions of the criteria for defi ning priorities were European networks to the neighbouring either from among those governments modifi ed. In October 2001, the Commission countries5. This is not really a modifi cation affected or corporate associations. It was once again proposed some modifi cations of the priorities, but it is a clear basic a very different matter, however, in 2005 in the light of White Paper on Transport reaffi rmation regarding strategic thinking regarding the report released by the HLG and the Gottenberg European Council that extends these networks towards chaired by De Palacio and, particularly, what proceedings. In the document that was the countries bordering on the European happened in the time period allocated for approved the following were defi nitively Union. The decision to create a new High public debate in 2006. incorporated as a specifi c project: the Level Group (the third, after the 1994 high-capacity rail network crossing the Christophersen Group and the 2002-2003 In the latter case it is important to point Pyrenees, the transformation of the Iberian Van Miert Group) was adopted by the our how in 2005, and in reference to the network to a European scale and the European Commission after a ministerial report on the extension of the TEN-T to incorporation of project number 3 (Madrid- seminar in Santiago de Compostela in EU neighbouring countries, only six people Barcelona-Montpellier) concerning a high- June 2004. The group was created in from the Spanish State, representing fi ve speed mixed line of transport of freight/rail September of the same year with the institutions or associations, took part in between Montpellier and Nîmes. The mission of studying “the extension of the the public debate sessions on the report arguments put forward by the Commission major trans-European transport axes to that the De Palacio Group was drawing left no doubt about the idea of establishing the neighbouring countries and regions”. up at that time. It is somewhat curious a rail axis leaving aside the Mediterranean The person named as president was the to note that these six people came from corridor: “This extension (…) will improve ex-Commissioner for Transport, Loyola the Mediterranean axis communities: the viability of project number 3 and will de Palacio. Although, as I stated earlier, Catalonia, the Autonomous Community of

80 / Papers 44 / Valencia and Murcia. In fact, the institutions some of the documents sent to Brussels in unacceptably against our region.”14 or associations that were present at the view of the European Commission request: (Castellón Port Authority). debate in April 2005 were the Tarragona Port Authority, the Barcelona Provincial “ ...A fundamental connexion has not been “ With regard to this matter it is our Council, the Valencian Autonomous included: the Mediterranean Corridor, con sideration that throughout the Community Government (via its delegation which presently directly links the North successive revisions of the TEN network in Brussels), the region of Murcia (also via of Africa (via Algeciras) to the trans- there has been a consolidation of a its representative in the European capital) European transport network, running radial philosophy and concentration and the private association FERRMED, along the entire Mediterranean coastal of axes which has taken shape since which promotes a high-capacity freight strip of the Spanish Peninsula to France, the beginning of the 1990s in this area railway corridor which runs from the then continuing to the rest of Europe.” of transport policies.”15 (Valencia Port Mediterranean coast to the heart of (Chamber of Commerce of Barcelona).9 Authority). Europe. “ ...the Spanish Mediterranean Axis has been “ Surprisingly, there are not TEN-T It is interesting to observe that less than totally overlooked (...) [this] has a bearing priority projects including intermodality a year later (with the De Palacio report and a negative impact on the radial nature requi rements for other important already published and approved), 32 people of Spanish communications (...) [this] Mediterranean ports such as Marseille actively participated in the debate on March rules out the possibilities offered by multi- and Valencia, in spite of their enormous 28, 2006 (after the public comment period modality.”10 (Chamber of Commerce of traffi c volumes (...) The Eastern Region which had ended on March 10), of which Murcia). of Spain seems to be mis-considered 27 were representatives from regions of in the European guidelines for [the] the Spanish Mediterranean Area: Catalonia, “ ...it cannot be understood why there is no next transport planning...” (Spanish the Valencian Autonomous Community, development of a Mediterranean axis that Road Association-European Union Road the Balearic Isles, Murcia and Andalusia. would run from Barcelona to Algeciras Federation). Clearly there was a somewhat untimely passing through Valencia, Alicante, reaction from the Mediterranean axis. This Almería, Granada and Malaga (...) there “ Examination of the list of the European reaction was evidently late, albeit energetic. is no justifi cation for why the TEN has Union’s 30 infrastructure priority projects Those thirty odd people assigned to take only one axis of penetration in Andalusia, reveals that goods shipped by rail in the part in the sessions to be held in Brussels the one running from Madrid to Seville, Mediterranean Corridor has not been represented institutions such as the Chamber when in Portugal there are three lines of suffi ciently taken into account and as of Commerce of Valencia, the Autonomous penetration networks and a number of a whole is not considered as a trans- Community of Murcia, the association others in Benelux” (Andalusian Chambers European network priority project.”16 FERRMED, various representatives from of Commerce Council).11 (Autonomous Government of Catalonia) the Autonomous Governments of Valencia and Catalonia, the Council of the Valencian “ ...[the] Mediterranean corridor has no “ The list of eligible stretches has to be Chambers of Commerce, the Alicante Port importance for the European Union (...) re-opened with the aim of including Authority, the Government of the Balearic The Group has undervalued the Me- projects which, although not included Isles, the Government of Andalusia, the diterranean corridor as a bias for the in the 30 that were selected in due Port Authorities of Valencia, Castellon and division of development and cooperation course, are now crucial (...) and it seems Andalusia , and so on. with the North African countries (...) it unquestionable that the enormous does not provide any solution for the impact that the rail connection with the But even more interesting than the specifi c macro-region of the Mediterranean Maghreb via the Straits would have (...) individuals or institutions that attended that Spanish Arc (...) the proposals of the would be seriously diminished if there debate were the allegations or reports that Group damage the interests of the were no fast exit towards Europe via different institutions sent to Brussels within Mediterranean macro-region.” (Valencian the Mediterranean corridor.”17 Valencian the Commission’s public comment period Community Chambers of Commerce Community-European Region Foundation] on the De Palacio Report8. A simple list of Council). those who presented allegations provides “ The southeast axis proposed by the High us with a real panorama of the reactions “ ...the non-inclusion of the project [the Level Group does not include the Spanish generated in the Mediterranean area. In Mediterranean axis railway] would Mediterranean Axis, which is a constantly table 4 we can see the breakdown of the re present a threat to the territorial developing economic area of vital origin of those who presented allegations. competitivity of the regions it importance...”18 (Government of Murcia). As can be seen, of the 19 reports sent to crosses...”12 (CIERVAL-CEOE) Brussels within the public comment period, “ This document creates a major vacuum only one (the report sent by the Gijón Port “ Following the priority rail axes in the report, regarding the European Mediterranean Authority) originated from an institution, the continuity of this network through Arc (...) between Barcelona and association or citizen from regions which do the Spanish Mediterranean is interrupted, Algeciras (...) by fragmenting the not make up part of the Mediterranean axis. being re-routed towards the centre of the Spanish Mediterranean Arc it contradicts country [Spain] and Portugal, leaving the all the previous European Union To facilitate readability I have grouped them periphery ports and regions in the East recommendations.”19 (Valencia City by autonomous community (fi gure 1) and and Northeast of Spain isolated (...) what Council). by organisation (fi gure 2). is missing is that the HLG (High Level Group) has not considered in its totality “ A number of aspects of the proposals After analysing these reports, one can the stretch of the FERRMED axis, which in put forward by the High Level Group are arrive at some conclusions. The fi rst is addition to connecting the north of Europe insuffi cient and inadequate (...) what is a concern openly expressed by all the with the south (...) addresses the sea and necessary is a review of the omission documents submitted by regions from inland ports (...) We consider the study by of possible axes that would favour the Mediterranean axis concerning the this HLG concerning motorways of the communication between the south and marginalisation of the Mediterranean axis sea to be insuffi cient...”13 (Alicante Port east of Europe without the need to pass in the De Palacio report, with the exception Authority). through the centre of the continent.”20 of the Government of Andalusia which (as (Autonomous Government of Valencia). opposed to the Andalusian Chambers of “ ...the fi ve major trans-national axes Commerce Council) made no expressed stated [by the High Level Group] have As can be seen, the common denominator demand regarding this matter. At this point devastating implications for the Valencian in these arguments reinforces my idea of a I would like to take the liberty of quoting Community, as they discriminate Mediterranean axis macro-region de facto

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND TERRITORY. THE MEDITERRANEAN ARC / 81 put into operation as a result of a series The document put forward by the has not tempered, not even by a stretch of reports which marginalise its territory Autonomous Government of Catalonia of the imagination, the traditional radial the from the major European axes, but whose made a pertinent point by proposing a design of Spanish infrastructures. weakness is due precisely to the lack of more fl exible way of considering the issue: a minimal communication structure and “It is our consideration that, as such, this contact between the parties involved. document refl ects a lack of coherence due 6. Conclusion: the change of the to the fact that for Europe the projects in “bottom up” methodology and the 2010 In a logical fashion, practically all of the question are based on internal European revision horizon reports reviewed, highlight the need to: relations, whilst for the countries in the south those axes under consideration are As we have seen, the construction of the 1. incorporate into the priority projects those which are at the service of relations Trans-European Transport Network from defi ned by the European Union, a rail with their neighbouring countries. This 1990 to 2006 has slowly adhered to a axis at an international level with a lack of coherence could be redressed by methodology which has faithfully refl ected high level of facilities running along the defi ning European projects that effectively the spirit of European unifi cation in recent Mediterranean coast from Barcelona to contribute to extending the trans-European decades: an attempt to increase cohesion – Algeciras, either as part of a higher level network and to relations with neighbouring in this case, territorial–, of Europe, but from axis Rhin-Rhône-Western Mediterranean countries. The Spanish Mediterranean bases and employing methods in which the (position defended by CIERVAL-CEOE freight rail axis would then be an option to infl uence of the member states has been and FERRMED, for example), or as a an be taken into account.”23 What is apparent a decisive and determining factor. The extension of project number 3 towards is that the fact that the Mediterranean development of the TEN-T and subsequent the south (defended by Autonomous corridor was not among the TEN-T list of lists or priority projects has responded to Government of Catalonia); 30 projects hardly justifi es that it should practical “confederal” thinking rather than not be considered ideal for other purposes, a federal spirit. The 1994 Essen decision 2. to defi ne to a large extent the Sea as for example the connexion with North and that of the Commission ten years Motorways with explicit references Africa. This very argument was put forward later (2004) to establish a series of priority to intermodality, to the connection by the Valencian Autonomous Government, projects (fourteen in the former and thirty of the Mediterranean ports to the via its Valencian Community-European in the latter) has determined subsequent land communications network and Region Foundation in Brussels, citing the development up until today. The priority, as relationships with North Africa. document itself: “Now when attempting we have seen, has been based on aspects Other noteworthy proposals were to design an intercontinental axis which that, in spite of statements and criteria arguments in favour of the Kiev-Lisbon links the North of Africa and Europe, a put forward, was much more a response axis as a westerly continuation of the constraint emerges, as the Mediterranean to the interests of the member states Mediterranean corridor (Port of Alicante corridor, not numbering among the 30, is and a refl ection of their particular view and the Valencia City Council) and the not an option. This brings us to the absurd of “national” territory than to construct Valencia-Madrid-Lisbon connexion with situation in which trains arriving at Algeciras real territorial cohesion at a European the Mediterranean corridor (Port of from Morocco (...) would have to follow a level. This is the only explanation for the Valencia). route to Figueres via the Meseta.”24. marginalisation of the TEN-T from a space such as the Mediterranean axis which Faced with this deluge of information and concentrates a major nucleus of economic allegations, the European Commission 5. Consequences of the TEN-T design: activity to which one can add its role as a has been answering the individuals and investments from 1986 to 2002 sea outlet linked to the North of Africa. institutions concerned on an individual basis (June 2006). In the Commission response The design of the TEN-Ts, in addition I am not alone in my criticisms based on it specifi es that the De Palacio Report to marginalising the Mediterranean axis the maps and distribution of funds related could in no way “intervene concerning the as seen in the projects maps and lists, to the TEN-T. The Van Miert Report of 2003 trans-European Transport Networks that has had a further (albeit logical) worrying itself (page 70) recommended modifying had been defi ned in Decision 884/2004/ consequence: focusing investment from the methodology for defi ning priorities CE, on April 29, 2004, by the European Europe destined for TEN-Ts in regions in a paragraph which, unfortunately, has Parliament and the Council”21, although it of Spain other than the Mediterranean had few repercussions (italics are mine): points out that “the European Commission axis, particularly Madrid. Based on my “In view of the integration of the trans- makes note, however, of their arguments calculations in an internal document drawn European transport network, the bottom up regarding the orientations of the trans- up in 2003 at the Càtedra Ignasi Villalonga approach is no longer suffi cient on its own European networks that will have to be de l’Institut d’Economia i Empresa Ignasi in order to determine the priority projects. carried out in 2010”. Villalonga I was able to conclude that No single Member State can claim to have 43 % of the funds and subsidies related an overall picture of transport needs on the In reality, and strictly speaking, it is true to the TEN-Ts destined for Spain in the scale of the enlarged Union.” It therefore that the extension of the TEN-Ts to period 1986-2002 ended up exclusively in defended the creation of a European neighbouring countries (the subject of the projects related to the Madrid Community Transport Observatory that, among other De Palacio HLG report) could not amend infrastructures, 7.8 % for Catalonia and 5.6 duties, “would assist the Commission (...) the TEN-T itself, but it is also clear, as % for Madrid. By extension, 37 % of the by making proposals for the choice of the highlighted by the allegation sent by the TEN-T subsidies for Spain ended up being priority projects...” (page 70). Autonomous Government of Catalonia to used on radial rail axes (Madrid-Valencia or the Commission in March 2006, that both Madrid-Barcelona) and only 6.5% used for The state perspective, that of each documents could have been dealt with and the Mediterranean rail corridor, Valencia- member state, which the Van Miert Report worded differently: “...the CE argues along Barcelona. In short, the Madrid Community defi nes as “a bottom up approach”, has the lines that the document only refl ects was directly or indirectly, rewarded by to been that which has taken precedence the 30 priority projects already defi ned in the extent of 80% of the funds designated in this process and the one that has due course by Europe. Since the Spanish for the TEN-Ts in Spain in the period marginalised the Mediterranean axis from Mediterranean rail axis is not included, it 1986-2002. Of these amounts designated the TEN-Ts. And this is not only the case doesn’t appear in the proposal to extend extraordinarily to the centre of the in the European Councils, to some degree the network either. Nevertheless, it is our peninsula both the high-speed axes Madrid- a matter of logic, given that these are consideration that the major European Seville and the radial axis to Valladolid, meetings of member states, but also in transport axes for international commerce Valencia and Saragossa took precedence. the initiatives of the Commission itself. do not necessarily correspond to the Clearly, the TEN-T policy has increased the It is signifi cant that the three High Level 30 trans-European priority projects.”22. concentration of funds in operations that Groups created in 1994 and 2004 to deal

82 / Papers 44 / with the issue of TEN-Ts were set up by as the investments made up until 2002, 2003), and in El Temps d’Economia (20-26, January means of adding representatives from the TEN-Ts have meant the marginalisation 2004). states. In the case of the Van Miert High of the Mediterranean corridor (with the 7 This letter prompted my own reply, published the Level Group (created at the end of 2002), corresponding doubts as to whether its following week in the same magazine. the representative from the Spanish state inherent high-orbit standing with respect 8 At the time of writing this article (July 2006), these was Antonio López-Corral, Director General to the European centre of gravity will be documents can be found at the following web for Economic Programmes – Ministry of addressed in the future), the transposition address: http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/external_ dimension/hlg/2006_02_17_tent_consultation/ Public Works, who at that time counted to a European level of the principles index_en.htm on the minister Francisco Álvarez Cascos of radiality of the traditional Spanish 9 You will fi nd the original quoted text into the (from the conservative Partido Popular). conception as regards infrastructures and Spanish version. Each member state was entitled to one the increase of the “…radial character of 10 to 20 ibid. representative, and in addition we can add Spanish communications, increasing the 21 Letter by Edgar Thielmann dated June 12, 2006. observers from acceding countries plus well-established existing concentration Director of the Offi ce for TENs and technological one representative from the European of Spanish transport…” (as stated in the development. Directorate B - Transeuropean Net- Investment Bank. Similarly in the setting document by the Murcia Chamber of works Energy and Transport. Directorate General for up of the Loyola de Palacio High Level Commerce25 during the public comment Energy and Transport. European Commission. Group (autumn 2004), once again there period for the De Palacio Report in 2006). 22 Contribution by the Autonomous Government was a designated representative for Only thus can one understand why the of Catalonia to the public comment period in each member state, plus others from Mediterranean corridor, which hosts a reference to the HLG report on the extension of the acceding countries or those geographically major part of economic activity, logistics major trans-European transport axes. The Spanish neighbouring on the European Union. and transport in Spain, has not been taken Mediterranean rail axis and the feasability of the Once again, a representative from the into consideration in any of the TEN-T sea motorways, Barcelona, March 1, 2006. Spanish Ministry of Public Works, this priority projects from 1990 to 2006, with 23 You will fi nd the original quoted text into the time under the ministry of Magdalena the exception of a general mention about Spanish version. Álvarez (from the PSOE – Spanish Socialist the sea motorways and the convertibility 24 Public consultation on the extension of the major trans-European axes. Contribution by the Valencia Party), namely Pablo Vázquez (Director of Spain’s railway network into high-speed Community-European Region Foundation, Brussels, of Transport Forecasts and Studies), systems, issues which, not being of a minor March 1, 2006. was elected to represent Spain, and nature, have not reached the same degree 25 Allegations by the Murcia Chamber of Commerce accompanied by Pilar Castro, Ministry of realization as other projects that have addressed to the HLG concerning the network chief. With this kind of methodology, and been singled out for special treatment. for peace and development of November 2005. that of the Commission’s initiatives it was Murcia. left in the hands of member states and, Looking ahead to the review in 2010, consequently, to their territorial logic. nobody could now argue that there is a It is hardly necessary to point out that lack of strategic objectives regarding the in states such as Spain, with a strong Mediterranean corridor. What is needed is a PROSPECTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF centralist tradition and radial perspective coordination between all the governments, of infrastructures, there was a faithful associations and institutions within the THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM continuation of these very principles when Mediterranean axis, from Andalusia to IN THE MEDITERRANEAN transposing to a European scale. There Catalonia in this case, embracing the is no other way to explain why not even Valencia Autonomous Community, Murcia Jean-Claude Tourret List 2 of the Van Miert Report included and the Balearic Isles (and which does not the Mediterranean corridor from Algeciras rule out the French regions affected), so to France (and beyond both towards the that this economic macro-region can rely on, 1. The challenges in southern Europe south and north) linked to the dynamic as of then, priority projects for the cohesion ports of the West Mediterranean. Let us of the European Union and the development The European Spatial Development not forget that this list identifi ed projects of the economy of this façade of the Perspec tive (ESDP) recommends with “a particularly high European added Mediterranean. The coordination of efforts, the establishment of an international value”. a clear defi nition of strategic objectives “economic integration zone” in southern and priority projects at the level of the Europe, integrating the major European The fact is that the much sought after Mediterranean corridor and a decisive policy poles from Seville, through Valencia, economic, social and territorial cohesion of information directed towards Madrid Barcelona, Lyons, Marseilles, Genoa, of the European Union, which the TEN-T and Brussels must be objectives that guide Milan, Rome to Naples, which could act attempted to achieve, has rested on the the actions of the societies and economies as a counterweight to the regions of articulation, sometimes forced, of individual implicated in the years that remain until the central Europe. In specifi c terms, this projects presented by the various member review of the TEN-T. strategy involves the implementation of states. Whenever Europe has proposed a competitive transport system in this a list of priority projects or has drawn up area, which can provide an effective and a map, it has done so based on material 1 Offi cial Journal num. C033 08/02/1991, pp. 1-3. long-lasting guarantee for the circulation of provided by high-ranking civil servants or 2 Trans-European networks. Interim report of the people and goods. public offi cials from the member states’ chairman of group of personal representatives of Heads of State or Government to the Corfu central governments. In my view, this fact However the problem of transport has European Council (Christophersen group) (1994). reveals, on the one hand, the weakness of become an obstacle in the Mediterranean 3 White Paper on growth, competitiveness and em- the European Union to achieve a structure today. Mountain ranges (the Apennines, ployment. COM (43) 700. Final. December 5, 1993. that is not just a mere appending of 4 Proposal resulting from the decision by the the Alps, the Massif Central and the states (and of their interests), and on the European Parliament and Council by which Pyrenees) divide the region and are a other hand, explains the scant relevance modifi cations were made to Decision 1.692/96/ signifi cant hindrance to the circulation of the Mediterranean corridor has had in CE. Brussels, 2.10.2001 COM (2001) 544 fi nal. fl ows. As a consequence, land networks this history of the TEN-Ts. All in all, the 2001/0229 (COD), p.18. are discontinuous, have very little TEN-Ts have been established in a way 5 “Networks for peace and development. Extension continuity and are highly saturated, which that is closely related and linked to the of the major trans-European transport axes to the is a disadvantage compared to northern view that each state has contributed to neighbouring countries and regions”. November, 2005. Europe, an area which is much better the Commissions, European Councils or 6 This can be seen, for example, in articles that equipped from this point of view. As a High Level Groups. In this way, in the appeared in Levante-El Mercantil Valenciano on consequence, the costs of north-south case of Spain, as we have seen in this July 2, 16 and 17 2003, El País (July 3, 2003), in El or east-west transport in this region are analysis of the projects selected as well Temps (weeks 8 to 14, 15 to 21 and 22 to 28 of July among the highest in the world.

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND TERRITORY. THE MEDITERRANEAN ARC / 83