5 Trans-European Transport Network
| (30421)
6135/09
COM(09) 44
| Green paper TEN-T: A policy review towards a better integrated Trans-European Transport Network at the service of the common Transport policy
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 4 February 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 February 2009
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | None planned
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 In 1996 the Community adopted Guidelines for the development
of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) — defined
as road, rail, inland waterways, motorways of the sea, seaports,
inland waterway ports, airports and traffic management and navigation
systems. The Guidelines provided that the TEN-T, should be a single
multimodal network, with corridors of common interest and integration
of land, sea and air transport infrastructure networks. They identified
14 priority axes deemed to be of European significance in supporting
trans-national trade and cohesion. In 2004 the Guidelines were
revised — changes made included:
- extension of the deadline for completing the TEN-T to 2020;
- extension of priority axes from 14 to 30 (the
United Kingdom is involved in five of these); and
- the possibility of coordinators (termed European
coordinators) to be appointed for cross-border priority axes.
5.2 Responsibility for implementing the network rests
with Member States. TEN-T projects are mainly financed by them
and to a lesser extent by private investors. The Community also
provides support, primarily through instruments adopted under
the Trans-European Networks Finance Regulation, as well as from
the Cohesion and European Regional Development Funds, and other
non-financial instruments, such as coordination initiatives.
5.3 Completion of the TEN-T network has been slow.
Of the 30 priority corridors, only four[22]
have been completed to date. The lack of funding and the complexity
of some TEN-T projects have been identified as the main reasons
impeding timely implementation. The Guidelines require the Commission
to report on their implementation every two years. The latest
report was published in January 2009.[23]
The document
5.4 With this Green Paper the Commission seeks to
open a debate questioning not only whether the objectives of the
2004 Guidelines have been achieved, but whether or not those objectives
are still sufficient to meet future TEN-T challenges. The Commission
summarises developments on the TEN-T and takes stock of three
main issues:
- the design of the future TEN-T
network;
- its objectives and priorities; and
- its financial needs.
The paper intersperses the discussion with twelve
questions for stakeholders to consider and concludes with a set
of three options for TEN-T development on which a final question
is based.
5.5 In relation to the design of the TEN-T network,
objectives and priorities the Commission:
- says it is considering evolving
from the existing priority corridor approach to a wider priority
or core network approach;
- suggests this new core network should include
a geographical pillar (defined in concrete geographical terms)
and a conceptual pillar (a more flexible, broader scope for setting
out TEN-T objectives and priorities);
- considers that this would introduce more flexibility
into the concept of projects of common interest, making it possible
to respond to market developments that are currently difficult
to foresee;
- touches additionally on how best to meet TEN-T
and wider Community objectives (including single market, cohesion,
and environmental objectives);
- questions, in this context, how the TEN-T programme
should address passenger and freight traffic, the role of airports
and ports in connecting the Community with the rest of the world,
the role of intelligent traffic systems and the role of waterborne
transport in the Community; and
- focuses on achieving environmental objectives
by exploring the role of technological innovation in a TEN-T context.
5.6 On TEN-T funding and implementation the Commission:
- recognises that achievements
would depend upon the TEN-T budget available to complete the network
and the role of the Member States and private investors in ensuring
that implementation is completed on time;
- is not, however, consulting on any budget increases;
- is instead focusing on ways by which TEN-T efficiencies
can be improved;
- is exploring other options, in addition to the
available Community funds, to encourage private investment and
maximise all the available funds;
- proposes building on existing instruments, for
example, the TEN-T Finance Regulation already provides for public-private
partnerships and loan guarantees;
- touches on other non-financial instruments, such
as the TEN-T European coordinators that help to stimulate the
implementation; and
- puts forward new instruments for consideration
such as the open method of coordination, which could include benchmarking
Member States as a way of encouraging investment in TEN-T corridors.
5.7 The Commission then outlines three options for
future TEN-T network design:
- maintaining the status quo
— that is keeping the TEN-T corridor approach, including
the wider objectives and principles as set out in the current
Guidelines, updating axes as necessary;
- maintaining the priority axes only — that
is abandoning the wider objectives and priorities as set out in
the current Guidelines given the difficulties in applying true
Community level planning, but maintaining the priority axes approach
(the approach used in the Trans-European Energy Network programme);
or
- a priority or core network approach — that
is adopt a flexible approach to the TEN-T, with geographical and
conceptual pillars. The network would have to facilitate co-modality,
by being fully integrated (including intelligent transport systems)
and able to meet future transport and environment demands, for
example contributing to emission reduction objectives.
5.8 The Commission says the Green Paper initiates
a consultation on the issues outlined within it and invites responses
by 30 April 2009.
The Government's view
5.9 The Secretary of State, Department for Transport
(Geoff Hoon) says that there are no policy implications at this
stage. He comments that:
- the Green Paper does not contain
any proposals that would change the Government's existing policy;
- the Government is still formulating its position
on the issues outlined by the Commission, but as a general principle
agrees with it that there is a need to revise the TEN-T programme;
- it would not wish, however, to see a revision
that moves too far away from the principles and objectives agreed
under the existing Guidelines;
- the Green Paper first option, and to a lesser
extent the second, are continuations of the principles set out
under the present Guidelines, whilst the third would provide a
more radical review of the TEN-T programme, both in scope and
in definition;
- it is not entirely clear, however, how the Commission
envisages the third option operating in practice;
- the Government will be seeking clarification
from the Commission and will consider all the options with view
to responding to the consultation by the deadline; and
- the Government expects that this review of TEN-T
policy will, in due course, lead to a legislative proposal amending
the 2004 TEN-T Guidelines.
5.10 The Minister tells us that the Government is
consulting informally with stakeholders — given the Commission
timescale a formal consultation is not possible. He adds, however,
that interest in the Green Paper is limited mainly to Government
bodies, sponsored agencies and the Devolved Administrations.
Conclusion
5.11 Clearly the consultation initiated by this
Green Paper may lead to important changes to efforts to develop
the Trans-European Transport Network. Before considering the document
further we should like to see the outcome of the Government's
informal consultation and its response to the Commission. Meanwhile
the document remains under scrutiny.
22 Oresund Bridge, Malpensa airport, the Betuwe line,
the high speed line PBKAL (Paris Brussels Cologne/Frankfurt Amsterdam
London). Back
23
(30376) 5620/09 + ADD 1: see chapter 22 in this Report. Back
|
