11 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 | — |
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 3 June 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-viii (2009-09), chapter 5 (25 February 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 11 June 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
11.1 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.
11.2 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.
11.3 Completion of the TEN-T network has been slow.
Of the 30 priority corridors, only four[42]
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.[43]
11.4 With this Green Paper the Commission sought
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 summarised developments on the TEN-T and took stock
of three main issues:
- the design of the future TEN-T
network;
- its objectives and priorities; and
- its financial needs.
The paper interspersed the discussion with twelve
questions for stakeholders to consider and concluded with a set
of three options for TEN-T development, for future network design,
on which it asked for comment also. The options were:
- 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.
The Commission invited responses by 30 April 2009.
11.5 When we considered the Green Paper we heard
from the Government that:
- the Government was still formulating
its position on the issues outlined by the Commission, but as
a general principle it agreed that there was a need to revise
the TEN-T programme;
- it would not wish, however, to see a revision
that moved 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, were 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; and
- the Government expected that this review of TEN-T
policy would, in due course, lead to a legislative proposal amending
the 2004 TEN-T Guidelines.
We commented that clearly the consultation initiated
by this Green Paper might lead to important changes to efforts
to develop the TEN-T network. Before considering the document
further we asked to see the outcome of the Government's planned
informal consultation and its response to the Commission. Meanwhile
the document remained under scrutiny.[44]
The Minister's letter
11.6 The former Secretary of State for Transport
(Geoff Hoon) first tells us that the Government's response to
the Green Paper was submitted on the 30 April 2009 and he encloses
a copy of the response. We annex the summary of this and the answer
to the Commission's final question (on the options). The full
text can be seen on a Commission website.[45]
The response makes clear that the Government is looking for a
fundamental review of the TEN-T programme and would prefer an
approach based on the Commission's second option.
11.7 The Minister comments further that:
- in preparing the response,
an informal consultation with interested stakeholders was conducted;
- given the nature of TEN-T, this was limited mainly
to Government bodies, sponsored agencies and the Devolved Administrations;
- limited contributions were received — however
the Government was aware that a considerable number of UK stakeholders,
including the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive, decided
to respond directly to the Commission;[46]
- the consultation exercise did not throw up any
real surprises;
- there was a general agreement that the TEN-T
programme should be reviewed;
- there was a general concern that the new design
should not overlook the peripheral needs of the Community; and
- an issue which attracted significant comment
was the Commission's initial options for the future design of
the TEN-T network — most of the responses favoured the second
option for its simplicity or the third for its potential wider-Community
benefit.
11.8 The Minister continues that in considering those
responses there were points of principle which the Government
felt it was important to stress in its response to the Green Paper,
such as the need for TEN-T to demonstrate value for money. On
this, it specifically expressed its opposition to inclusion of
new TEN-T corridors without a compelling case for Community value-added.
He says that key points which were emphasised were:
- the objectives of the TEN-T
programme need to be clarified and more focused on both scope
and outcome;
- any TEN-T funding from the Community budget must
be better focused on priority projects, and combined with a European
Investment Bank loan and private finance as a general rule;
- the existing TEN-T maps would need to be reviewed
— no further "priority corridors" should be set
up without a compelling case for Community value-added;
- fundamentally, TEN-T needs to be better focused
on projects that provide genuine Community value-added and value
for money;
- only those transport corridors and transport
components (such as major ports or airports) that are of strategic
interest to a number of Member States should be part of the TEN-T
network;
- in order to obtain a true network effect, the
network needs to be fully integrated and multimodal and promote
sustainable modes of transport;
- the peripheral needs of the Community should
also be taken into account; and
- the review should address sound financial management,
project scoping and TEN-T management which have each been inadequate
in many cases — for instance, the Government would wish
to see a clear definition of what defines the TEN-T network
as complete.
11.9 Finally the Minister tells us that the Presidency
hopes that at the 11 June 2009 Transport Council it will be possible
to agree Council Conclusions, which the Government expects to
invite the Commission to continue discussing the TEN-T review
and to submit a proposal amending the TEN-T Guidelines before
the end of 2010.
Conclusion
11.10 We are grateful to the Minister for this
information about the Government's consultation on and response
to the Commission's Green Paper. We have no further questions
to raise and clear the document.
42 Oresund Bridge, Malpensa airport, the Betuwe line,
the high speed line PBKAL (Paris Brussels Cologne/Frankfurt Amsterdam
London). Back
43
(30376) 5620/09 + ADD 1: see HC 19-viii (2008-09) chapter 22 (25
February 2009). Back
44
See headnote. Back
45
See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/consultations/2009_04_30_ten_t_green_paper_en.htm.
Back
46
Such responses can also be seen on http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/consultations/2009_04_30_ten_t_green_paper_en.htm.
Back
|
