CPMR comments and proposals on the European Commission’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 European Parliament, 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 European Council 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 European Union’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.