CPMR comments and proposals on the ’s proposal dated 1st October 2003 concerning revision of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)

Note for the Political Bureau, draft, 15 December 2003

1 - THE CONTEXT

The proposal for a revision of the TEN-T has been published almost three months to the day after publication of the conclusions of the Van Miert Group (VMG), which comprised high level representatives of the 25 national transport ministers. It identifies 29 major European projects to be completed by 2020.

The speed with which this has been done bears witness to the Commission’s laudable concern not to prolong the process of revising the 1996 guidelines any further, as it has already suffered from too many setbacks and delays.

On the other hand, the short time span and the high degree of convergence between the “ministers’ report” and the Commission’s proposal raise a number of concerns about:

- the lack of time given, over the summer period, to allow other European players to carry out a detailed assessment of the ministerial proposals and to draw up well-argued counter proposals; - whether the Commission can really have taken account of the qualified opinions that have nonetheless been expressed during the three-month period; - lastly, and most importantly, how far the Commission took account of the results of the studies it paid a consortium of experts to produce, with recommendations on how to introduce more territorial consistency and greater consideration of sustainability in the TEN-T (the TEN-STAC project).

However, the results of this work, which are now in the hands of the Council of Transport Ministers and the , do have the merit of being clear.

They come at the very time when there is a convergence of opinions (between the Italian presidency of the EU, the Commission’s President, groups of Member States, etc.) on the need to launch a major European growth initiative.

The CPMR has taken stock of events concerning this matter over recent weeks, namely:

- on 11 November 2003, the Commission’s publication of the a list of quick-start projects, in the context of the European Initiative for Growth. This covered 30 transfrontier sections which may feasibly be launched within three years, including the 29 priority ones listed in the proposal made on 1 October. The list includes sea motorways; - at its meeting on 25 November 2003, the ECOFIN Council’s opposition to allowing the level of co- funding by the TEN-T budget for the transfrontier sections of projects to go up from 10% to 30%. On the other hand, ECOFIN did give its agreement to a level of 20%, which was confirmed by the on 12 December;

- at its meeting on 5 December 2003, the Transport Council’s unanimous approval of the list of 29 priority projects, to which it added the Seine/Escaut rivers link. A list of 30 priority projects is now being proposed for a second reading by the European Parliament; - the decision taken at the same Transport Council meeting to reduce the duration and rate of community co-funding for sea motorways (see the CPMR’s reaction to this alteration in Part 3 of this note) - on 12 December 2003, the European Council’s encouragement for launching the 30 priority projects, and for speeding up work in order to ensure the Transport Council’s agreement on the new Eurovignette directive by March 2004. This should help to finance infrastructure projects by promoting greater user of tolls and other road user charges.

Over and above its comments on the methods for preparing the Commission’s proposal and on the selection criteria used, and following an internal consultation process and identification of priorities, the CPMR and its geographical commissions are using this document to propose their ‘alternative list’ of priority corridors (see Part 4). They will draw on this document over coming weeks when contributing to the public debate which is going on in parallel to the co-decision process (meetings with the rapporteur designated by the European Parliament and transport ministers, development of a partnership with the Committee of the Regions, etc.).

2 – GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ‘PHILOSOPHY’ OF THE PROPOSAL

The following remarks are based on the principles which the CPMR has established on various occasions since October 2001 (when the Commission made its first proposal for revising the TEN-T, which was ultimately rejected by the Council). These principles were made explicit in the Naples Declaration, which was adopted by the Political Bureau on 21 July 2003.

On first analysis, this proposal for a revision of the TEN-T seems to be more in line with a somewhat ‘ancient’ era of European integration which we thought had ended:

- the intergovernmental method displays a lack of community added value. Transport ministers agree on a European map of infrastructure which is acceptable in budgetary terms. In the way it has been drawn up, the new TEN-T retains the same flaw as its predecessor, and this is likely to remain the case for as long as this policy is not rated as a shared competence: it continues to represent the addition, albeit coordinated, of national priorities; - insufficient consideration of territorial cohesion and the Regions which can help to promote it and bring it about As long as it lacks real community added value, the proposed TEN-T cannot truly aspire to be a response to the objectives set out in the current Treaty, and even less does it fulfil the ambition of territorial cohesion, which is expected to be included in the forthcoming constitution; - good intentions on coordination between States, but here again, the Regions are forgotten, and we know that it is the latter who are developing links in this area, because they are more advanced in the terms of transnational cooperation (notably thanks to achievements under Interreg); - equally virtuous intentions to break with the shocking lack of coherence between the different community instruments which co-finance transport infrastructure. Without formal obligations, what would prevent the directorate-generals concerned from ignoring each other, or transport ministries from losing interest in Interreg (for example)? - Concerning sea motorways, a high level of priority is given to avoiding distortions in competition, which will hamper the success of the initiative in maritime areas which are ‘less profitable’ for transport operators. If care is not taken, this new instrument could ultimately reinforce the dominant position of big ports located at the heart of current shipping routes. - Lastly, this document remains tainted by a lack of imagination, with the exception of sea motorways, which are a major innovation;

The TEN-T is of course just one part of community transport policy, but scrutiny of this proposed revision gives an impression that the Commission has not tabled a major contribution in line with the major objective of its 2001 white paper, which was to ensure that by 2010 the share of maritime and rail transport would stabilised at its 1998 level.

2 Lastly, how can the matter of infrastructure projects be dealt with without tacking the issue of how they can be funded by changes in pricing? The Commission’s proposal for modifying the Eurovignette directive, which it published in July 2003, is not on its own sufficient. Even though this is not the subject of this note, the CPMR is worried about the ’s delay in legislating in this area, when toll charging initiatives are being introduced by some Member States. Can one really imagine a massive change in haulage companies’ habits, which would entail them putting their lorries on ferries using the sea motorways, without imposing strong financial constraints in the form of discouraging road tolls?

If nothing is done in this area, Regions in transit areas would, at their own initiative, start imposing their own tolls. Would this be desirable if it was done illegally in terms of community law?

3 – SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE GUIDELINES

Priority projects for an enlarged Union: a selective methodology

The Commission based itself on the two types of selection criteria used by the VMG:

- a restrictive criteria, which could be described as being based on budgetary realism. Only ‘mature’ projects, which Member States intend to start work on before 2010, should be taken into account; - among such projects, preference should be given to those which demonstrate “their added value in facilitating the mobility of goods and people between the Member States”, “their contribution to territorial cohesion” and “their contribution to sustainable development of transport”.

While the Commission points out that the VGM “has proved the worth of this methodology”, this does not mean that it cannot be contested. For its part, the CPMR would have added the criteria of contributing to balanced development across the Union’s territory, and would have given more importance to the sustainability and accessibility criteria. Tomorrow’s infrastructure projects should not only and essentially be those which respond to current congestion problems or those which are likely to emerge in an enlarged Union. All transport and regional development economists know that, to a certain extent:

– the availability of infrastructure and services of course reflects current mobility needs, but it also has an impact on future flows. The improvement of accessibility between two centres of activity generates new flows between them, or increases flows which were previously smaller due to structural reasons (for example, “the high speed train effect”, the expected impact of sea motorways, etc);

– infrastructure projects stimulate economic development and therefore contribute to a redistribution of the balance between Regions over the long term.

Priority projects for an enlarged Union: a limited number of new projects

The notion of a ‘limited number’ should be considered with caution, due to the fact that a list of 30 projects (29+1), including the 11 of the 14 uncompleted Essen projects, will happen in a budgetary context which will continue to be characterised by the scarcity of resources.

The CPMR can nonetheless particularly express its satisfaction that the Commission has re-included the high capacity Pyrenean rail-crossing project. Respecting the principle of budgetary realism, the Van Miert report had downgraded it to being a secondary priority, whereas any serious and forward-thinking consideration of the matter demonstrates that the need for it is indisputable. The likely alternative, which would entail a strengthening of the ‘dual road freight corridor’ going around each end of the Pyrenees, is simply impossible to envisage in terms of the quality of life of local people, road safety and sustainable development. Atlantic and Mediterranean sea motorways will furthermore be unable to meet the fast-growing demand for goods flows.

3 Priority projects for an enlarged Union: declaration of European interest

The introduction of this ‘label’ would appear to be most useful insofar as it aims to facilitate the release of different types of funds, to improve coordination between Member States, and to reduce the obstacles posed by the existence of different building permission procedures in a transnational context. The text refers to the need to coordinate the use of subsidies granted under the TEN-T budget line, the Cohesion Fund and the pre- accession structural instrument.

As for European funds available for accessibility infrastructure projects after 2006, the decisions are far from being taken. These include the cohesion funds, ERDF support under Objectives 1 and 2, a possible transnational cooperation instrument (a new regional policy Objective or Community Initiative Programme), a distinct TEN-T budget or one which is integrated with another instrument, etc..

If, as the CPMR requests, these tools are to be used to improve the accessibility of peripheral regions, and consequently their competitiveness, it would be appropriate to ensure that they are made compatible with the TEN-T. This should be included in the drafting of the community guidelines for revising them.

The ERDF should be added to the guidelines’ list of community funds that can be used in a concerted fashion with the TEN-T budget, so that it is applicable from now on, and during the period between the adoption of the new TEN-T (during 2004 if the co-decision process is rapid) and 2007 (when the new structural policies will be implemented). For example, the extensive support available under the ERDF for funding major infrastructure projects in Objective 1 regions (even if they are not necessarily situated on these corridors) must be articulated with the TEN-T corridors from now on. It would be important to demonstrate that the Union’s overall action in this area is coherent, even if this implies a need to use several instruments implemented over a shared given area.

Under the same heading, the Commission underlines its desire, reflected in a proposal to modify Regulation N° 2236/95 (the TEN-T budgetary regulation), to allow community co-financing of up to 30% of the cost of “cross- border sections particularly eligible for this higher support of this type”. Contrary to the position of the ECOFIN Council, the CPMR endorses this proposal, and even considers that the rate of co-financing could be higher in disadvantaged regions, especially regions with a permanent handicap.

Insofar as the TEN-T funds can be mixed with other community finance (e.g. the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund) it is important to set ceilings for total amounts that can be accumulated, which would vary in accordance with the extent of geographical or demographic handicap, and according to a classification of regions covered, which would be jointly drawn up at European level by those responsible for transport policies and those responsible for regional policies (without excluding those concerned with competition policy).

The mechanism for supporting sea motorways and short sea shipping links (cabotage)

As far as maritime matters are concerned, the CPMR can express satisfaction about the remarkable inter- institutional consensus on sea motorways. They were scantly outlined in the Commission’s White Paper in September 2001, but they were taken up by the Van Miert Group, have been fully recognised in the latest Commission proposal and are included in the quick-start list. They are therefore the ‘priority priorities’. They are still too vaguely defined (in contrast to most land-based priority projects), which opportunely gives scope for debate between the different partners concerned.

A concept has been born, and the CPMR is committed to working hard to establish plans for each maritime area, in collaboration with the countries concerned. Efforts will notably be made to ensure that this new opportunity generates a significant increase in maritime traffic, without endangering existing short sea shipping lines.

Sea motorways have been introduced in Article 3 of the revised TEN-T community guidelines, where they have been added to the list of infrastructure projects making up the TEN-T, along with roads, railways, ports, airports and other interconnection points between modal networks.

4 Most importantly, they are the subject of a new article in the text (Article 12a), which sets out their aim, the infrastructure that they will need and relevant procedures for developing and operating them.

The CPMR does not necessarily have all the expertise necessary to adopt an immediate and definitive position on the new instrument that is being proposed. It has already stated and reiterated an agreement in principle above on this concept which would combine support for the launch of services through the Marco Polo Programme, and support for port infrastructure and investment in vessels (although the details are still imprecise).

On the other hand, there has been a varied reaction from the ‘professionals’. While national transport ministers gave their unanimous and favourable agreement to this instrument, a major port organisation such as the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) expressed considerable caution, notably highlighting the distortions of competition that might be introduced between ports:

- on one hand ports situated on the motorways would benefit from public funding for building quays which would be devoted to services co-financed by Marco Polo; - on the other hand, ports situated away from the sea motorways would see community finance pass them by without being able to access it, and there would be a potential danger that pre-existing short sea shipping routes would be run down, faced with competition by the new ‘seaways.’

As a preliminary position, the CPMR advocates some basic principles:

1 – A sea motorway should be developed by a partnership of all those concerned, along the coasts in each maritime area: even though it is formally up to groups of two (although why not three, or even more?) Member States to propose sea motorway routes to the Commission, thereby identifying a limited number of ‘beneficiary’ ports, this stage should be preceded by extensive consultation. The Regions must have a key role in this consultation process, and this should be recognised in the community guidelines, which is not currently the case in the Commission’s proposal. The Commission is often too respectful of a notion of subsidiarity that only takes account of Member States, and it is not being realistic when it omits references to the Regions from its new guidelines, because in this area they are often the motors of dynamic development of the maritime economy, when they are not the main providers of ‘national’ co-funding.

Such consultation and partnerships will help to ensure:

- complementarity between sea motorways, which will provide services between major ports, and other existing short sea shipping lines or those which will be developed as a result of the sea motorways; - in more general terms, coordination, in each maritime area, between intercontinental, intra-European and local interregional maritime links. This will facilitate the development of some links without endangering others, so that unintended and undesirable effects will be avoided, which would ultimately encourage more road traffic.

2- It would be appropriate to review the matter of the co-funding ceiling in the Marco Polo Programme, to help launch the lines which would constitute the sea motorways. The CPMR has always stressed that limiting the level of co-funding to 30% over three years is insufficient. The failure of recently launched lines, in the Atlantic or Mediterranean for example, sheds doubt on the validity of the European Commission’s current anti- subsidy trend (which is furthermore incompatible with the neo-keynesian philosophy which growth initiatives will imply). The revision of the TEN-T provides an opportunity to review the cautious Marco Polo approach. Peripheral regions know only too well that in this area, dogmatic positions are a feeble disguise for the desire of dominant maritime interests, with far greater reserves of capital, to preserve their market shares.

It is therefore easy to understand the CPMR’s surprise and dismay about the restrictions to the funding mechanism proposed by the Transport Council on 5 December. In ensure a hasty response was made to these proposals, the Secretary General issued the following press release.

5 “At its meeting on 4 and 5 December, the Transport Council significantly curtailed the initial ambition of sea motorways. These new 'high-speed' maritime routes, aimed at relieving congestion on the roads and in particular at natural barriers, was one of the strong points and innovative aspects of the Transport White Paper and the Commission's communication of 1st October revising the TEN-T guidelines. In response to pressure from transport ministers from northern Europe, the Council has significantly reduced the level of start-up aid proposed for the future ‘seaways’ in the form of funding from the Marco Polo programme (the Community programme supporting intermodal transport solutions). The level of Community financial contribution will be 20% over 2 years, instead of 30% over 3 years as originally proposed. If the European Parliament accepts this alteration in its second reading, the motorways of the sea will remain no more than a hollow concept and a slogan of institutional communication. They will lose any chance of becoming operational, at least in a number of maritime areas where assessments of the potential volumes of transport transferable from road to sea make the profitability of new routes highly uncertain, at least for the first four years of operating. The CPMR therefore calls on the ministers to review their decision, and intends to submit its case to the European Parliament. This issue is vital for the territorial cohesion and sustainable development of the maritime regions.”

Here too, as for the co-funding of infrastructure, there should be community financing arrangements which enable users to adapt to the extent of the difficulties. It is common sense that where short sea shipping flows are currently weak, the sea motorway would be more difficult to develop than elsewhere, and they would require more significant community incentives and, at the same time, more flexible rules for the use of regional aids.

By helping to promote a significant transfer of flows from a polluting mode to a sustainable one, sea motorways can undoubtedly meet a public service interest at a reasonable cost in comparison to road infrastructure, and they therefore deserve specific treatment.

Along the same lines, tentative plans for the legal framework should not be too shackled by the ‘diktats’ of competition policy. French senator Henri de Richemont’s recent report proposes an ambitious framework, which would be somewhat ‘greedy’ when it comes public funding. For the Atlantic area it goes as far as proposing the creation of a semi-public company in which different States would have a stake. It would take over a short sea shipping fleet and the running of the line would be contracted out to private operators. If the challenge of bringing about modal transfer is really to be met, it is essential that the Commission adopts a flexible position on such innovative ventures.

As for the low degree to which the territorial dimension has been taken into account regarding the framework for subsidies for the transport and energy sector, there would certainly be scope for inventing new financial mechanisms and special dispensations which would stimulate environmental innovation and accessibility.

As far as islands are concerned, it would already be appropriate to point out that the term used in the first paragraph of the new Article 12a includes the need “to improve access to peripheral and island States” (as opposed to Regions) as one of the objectives of sea motorways. This represents a significant retreat on the objectives for improving the accessibility of peripheral and island regions, as stated in the references to the TEN-T in the Treaty.

More fundamentally, and such as it is presented, the concept of sea motorways is not suited to the situation of islands, for whom the nature, volume and irregularity of shipping flows pose particular challenges, which therefore requires some long-term efforts.

For island regions, the most appropriate solution would be to impose public service obligations (PSOs), which are a much more sustainable support mechanism than the transitional one envisaged for sea motorways.

Council Regulation n° 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 only currently defines ‘island cabotage’ as being “the carriage of passengers or goods by sea between: ports situated on the mainland and on one or more of the islands of one and the same Member State, or ports situated on the islands of one and the same Member State. In practice, the Commission has however authorised the imposition of a PSO for the link between an island and a Member State other than its own one (in the case of Bornholm), but this was only further to long and difficult negotiations. This situation contrasts with the system used for air transport, which explicitly authorises the imposition of a PSO for intra- community links servicing peripheral regions. This means that there is therefore ultimately a form of

6 discrimination between maritime and air transport. It would therefore be appropriate, for island regions, to simply replace the restrictive mention of “one and the same Member State” in the definition of ‘island cabotage’ in Article 1.2 of Regulation n° 3577/92 with a wording that refers to the territory of the EU as a whole.

Furthermore, because island regions are frequently located at the EU’s frontiers, the possibility of introducing PSOs for shipping lines linking them with third countries should also be looked at.

The CPMR’s Islands Commission recently published a study conducted by the Eurisles network on “Island transport in the EU”, which provides specific proposals for improving EU legislation and regulations so as to take better account of the situation of islands. A summary of these proposals is provided in Annex 5.

Increased coordination between Member States

The proposal introduces some intelligent arrangements which would help to improve the transnational organisation of the TEN-T and promote cooperation between Member States, namely the new ‘European coordinator’ function, transnational public enquiries, etc..

However, in the explanation of the grounds for these arrangements, for example in the new and lengthy Section 10a, concerning “coordination between Member States”, there is just one brief mention of the role of the Regions in transnational operations, when it is stated that in point 4 of the new Article 17a, the European coordinator shall “contribute to the dialogue with operators, transport users, regional and local authorities …”. The CPMR considers that this constitutes a retreat on initiatives that the Commission itself has taken with a view to developing the territorial dialogue prior to decision-making.

This position is furthermore all the more regrettable in that it is likely to prove unproductive. The ongoing extension of European regional authorities’ competences and the increase in the budgets they have at their disposal make them essential partners in the implementation and funding of the TEN-T.

4 – PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS: PROPOSALS FROM THE PERIPHERAL AND MARITIME REGIONS

The CPMR is proposing below a series of projects which are complementary to the 30 projects identified by the European Commission. This list is the result of discussions in the geographical commissions, which have notably been characterised by:

- their knowledge of transnational issues concerning both their internal accessibility (ease of movement of goods and persons inside their interregional area) and their external accessibility (connections between their area and the rest of Europe and the world via port links). In most cases, these elements are based on studies conducted with support from the Interreg IIC, and Interreg IIB programmes. - technical work carried out by pre-existing transnational working groups, giving rise to recommendations which have been approved by the executive authorities of the geographical commissions.

The following elements constitute a summary of the results of a truly bottom-up approach. The complete final document for each transnational geographical area is included in the annexes, in the languages available.

- They provide details about the methodology used for determining priorities - They provide information about the trends and specific challenges of the area concerned in the field of transport and accessibility - In conclusion, they propose a series of priority axes and projects, as well as some preliminary options concerning sea motorways

7 41 – Revision of the TEN-T in the Area (see complete proposal in Annex 1)

All in all, the Baltic Sea Commission (BSC) considers that the list of 30 priority projects does not pay sufficient attention to this part of Europe, bearing in mind the considerable challenges Northern Europe is facing in the near future, notably concerning the strong expected growth in flows from and to Russia and Norway. In this context, the improvement of East-West links is of utmost importance, as are multimodal transport services and infrastructure projects around the Baltic Sea.

Bearing the above in mind, the BSC’s priority is to see included in the list of priority TEN-T projects a scheme for improving the connections between the Swedish and Finnish rail networks, between Boden et Haparanda (“Haparandabanan/Norrbotniabanan”). This investment is of the utmost importance for improving cohesion in the region and for managing the strong growth expected in freight flows between Russia, on one hand, and the and Atlantic Ocean on the other hand.

Furthermore, the BSC urges that all those concerned to complete the “Nordic triangle railway/road axis”, which has been selected as project 12 in the Commission’s list. It notes with satisfaction that two of the sections concerned by this project have been selected in the 11 November quick-start list.

On the other hand, it notes that project 27 (“: Warsaw-Kauna-Riga-Tallinn”) does not appear on the quick-start list.

The BSC stresses that the TEN-T should take account of the principles of sustainability, general safety and maritime safety. In this spirit, it associates itself to the resolution adopted by the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 8 and 9 September 2003, which designated the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Area, and supports the resolution’s proposals for limiting ships’ access.

42 – Revision of the TEN-T in the Atlantic area (see complete proposal in Annex 2)

The projects selected in the Commission’s proposal which concern the Atlantic area are the following:

- Project 3: “high speed railway axis of south-west Europe”: Lisboa/Porto-Madrid-Vitoria-Dax- Bordeaux-Tours - Project 8: “Multimodal link Portuga/ rest of Europe” integrating the Lisboa-Coruña and Lisboa- Seville railway - Project 9: “conventional rail link Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Larne-Stranraer” - Project 13: “UK/Ireland/Benelux road link” - Project 14: “West coast main axis” (rail) - Project 16: Freight railway axis Sines-Madrid-Paris”, large capacity trans-Pyrenean link for increasing railway traffic between the Iberian peninsula and - Project 19: “High-speed axis interoperability on the Iberian peninsula”

The quick-start list includes the following projects selected by the Commission:

- Project 3: the Lisboa-Porto-Madrid section - Project 8: described as “on-going and in preparation for Portuguese and Spanish motorways and Lisboa-Coruña-Sines railway” - Project 13: Felixtowe-Hollyhead/Stanraer- Road (new or upgrade) - Project 19: the Norte-Noroeste corridor, including Vigo-Porto

8 A comparison between the Atlantic Arc Commission’s priorities and the European Commission’s proposals and the quick-start list reveal two major points where the Atlantic regions are in disagreement :

- the Madrid-Vitoria-Dax-Tours high-speed rail link, which is an integral part of Project 3, meets four of the eligibility criteria for the quick-start list, but it is not included. At its meeting in Bilbao on 17 November 2003, the Atlantic Arc Commission’s transport group approved a resolution calling for this project to be included (see Annex 3); - the Atlantic Arc Commission furthermore demands that the project for extending the existing high- speed railway link from Paris to Britanny and the Pays de la Loire, which are interconnected with the Ile de France high-speed train network, be included on the list of priority TEN-T projects. This project will ultimately permit the outlying areas of Western France to be linked to the heart of Europe and future Member States.

The Atlantic Arc Commission has furthermore taken on board the concept of sea motorways, and is organising a seminar in Bordeaux on 13 and 14 January on the subject of an “Atlantic sea motorway”. Involving the five countries concerned in this area, as well as their regions and transport operators, this meeting will prepare the ground for developing a project in this area.

43 – Revision of the TEN-T and the North Sea area (see Annex 4 for complete proposal)

This area is affected by a wide variety of circumstances regarding transport, and there is a wide gap between North and South. The North is sparsely populated, highly peripheral and distant from markets. The South, on the other hand, has problems of an entirely different nature and is more affected by congestion.

Projects selected in the Commission’s proposal which concern this area are the following:

- Project 2: “high-speed railway axis Paris-Bruxelles/Brussel-Köln-Amsterdam-London” - Project 5: “Betuwe axis” - (Project 11: ”fixed rail/road link between Denmark and Germany” completed in 2001) - Project 12: “Nordic triangle railway/road axis” - Project 13: ” UK/Ireland/Benelux road link” - Project 14: “West coast main axis” (rail) - Project 20: “Fehmarn Belt railway axis” - Project 24: ” Railway axis Lyon/Genova-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerpen ” - Project 26: “Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe”

Despite the specific characteristics of the northern part, which have been highlighted in the “Northern Dimension Action Plan”, only two priority projects cross it.

Three issues must be taken into account: internal relations in the area; its links with the economic heart of Europe; and its role as an interface between the North and the Centre of Europe. The last issue is particularly important in the context of the future development and exploitation of Northern Europe’s natural resources, especially in the Barents region and the North of Norway.

In the maritime area, the North Sea Commission (NSC) is calling for a North Sea Motorway to be included in the TEN-T. Details on this are provided in Annex 4. It could be developed on the back of a currently existing project, the “Northern Maritime Corridor”, which is financed by Interreg IIIB. This ‘seaway’ should be linked to the ‘Atlantic seaway’ and it would be necessary to work out the details of connections with land-based axes and hinterlands.

The NSC would furthermore like maritime safety considerations to be fully reflected in investment policies, with a view to promoting competitiveness and sustainability in the maritime transport sector.

9 In the land-based transport field, the NSC is promoting the “Nordic Link”, a transport corridor from and towards the South-West of Norway and Western Sweden, across the Danish peninsula of Jutland. This corridor is multimodal, integrating roads, railways and ferries.

A map of these various projects is included in Annex 4.

Lastly, the NSC has proposals to make in the air transport field, and it stresses the importance of this mode of transport for peripheral regions. They concern the development of a network of regional airports and the creation of a system of slots reserved for flights to peripheral regions, which would provide peripheral airports with access to national hubs.

10