12.9.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/82

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Communication as a significant and helpful support for the implementation of the Core Network Corridors and the predefined projects in them, as defined in Part I of Annex I to the Regulation establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (the CEF Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013), on the basis of the criteria set out in the Regulation on Union Guidelines for the development of the trans — European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU (the Guidelines — Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013).

1.2

The EESC appreciates the Communications’ focus on the governance system as the key driver of efficient implementation and the support it provides for the development of the work plans for the Core Network Corridors as a step toward coordinated cross border planning in the corridors to achieve coherent capacity and avoid bottlenecks.

1.3

The EESC underscores the importance of harmonious and efficient interaction between the Coordinators, whose activity will be the key factor for efficient implementation, the Corridor Fora with their working groups and, in particular public and private stakeholders at different levels, including civil society.

1.4

The EESC takes note that ensuring clear and coherent coordination will be an extremely demanding task, bearing in mind the geographical scope of the Core Network Corridors and the need to coordinate with other initiatives, for instance the Rail Freight Corridors established under Regulation (EC) 913/2010, the NAIADES II inland waterway development initiative, the Motorways of the Sea and the ERTMS rail traffic management system, as well as the need to engage with private and public stakeholders. It still seems that there are tools available, for instance the use of working groups, to resolve this problem.

1.5

Bearing in mind the role of the EESC as a link between the EU institutions and civil society and considering the initiative to start a participative dialogue with civil society regarding the implementation of the 2011 Transport Policy White Paper (1), we consider that participation of an EESC representative in the work of each Corridor Forum would bring added value.

1.6

In this context, the EESC underscores the importance of the governance system being seen as understandable and transparent. The EESC trusts that adequate efforts will be made to ensure that this important objective is reached in order to improve public interest and public support for TEN-T implementation.

1.7

The EESC draws attention to the potential role of thorough and unbiased preliminary project studies as an element that may also play an important role as an element of a framework for a transparent dialogue. Consideration could also be given to the need for a conflict resolution mechanism.

1.8

Nevertheless, the EESC sees fundamental weaknesses in the effectiveness of a governance system that at each decision making point is entirely dependent on consent of the Member States and that is not backed up by a strong legal enforcement system when the aims set out in the Guidelines or in the CEF Regulation are not adequately implemented.

1.9

Considering the soft law character of the governance system, built on the consensus of the Member States and the infrastructure owners as a necessary prerequisite for the basic decisions on infrastructure development and new building EU co — financing becomes particularly important. In the opinion of the EESC EU co — financing must consistently be used as a means to arrive at agreed construction agreements and their timely completion. Reference is made to point 4.7 below.

1.10

Likewise the EESC is concerned by the slight budgetary resources available at EU level and the slow pace and unclear prospects under which alternative financing mechanisms such as project bonds and private public partnerships seem to be developing.

2.1

In December 2013 the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Guidelines and the CEF Regulation.

2.2

The Guidelines provide a new framework for building a multimodal cross-border infrastructure network to facilitate the resource-efficient and sustainable mobility of people and goods within the EU in order to improve accessibility and competitiveness in the European Union with a 2030/2050 horizon.

2.3

EU co-financing of transport infrastructure projects and related priorities for the duration of the 2014 — 2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) are set out in the CEF Regulation.

2.4

Together, the Guidelines and the CEF Regulation are an important element in the implementation of the goals of the 2011 White Paper on Transport Policy.

2.5

The main objectives of the Communication Building the Transport Core Network: Core Network Corridors and Connecting Europe Facility (COM(2013) 940) (The Communication) are as follows:

2.6

To accompany the Communication, the Commission has published a Commission Staff Working Document that sets out the planning method used when defining the comprehensive and core networks set out in the Guidelines (SWD (2013)542).

3.1

The Communication provides an explanation of the role and functioning of the Core Network Corridors. It highlights the role of the European Coordinators, and that of the Corridor Forum, possibly complemented by working groups, as a consultative body and a link between the Coordinator and the EU Member States, authorities at all levels and other stakeholders.

3.2

The role of the Coordinator and the Forum in drawing up the work plan for each corridor until December 2014 is described, as well as the decisive role of the Member States concerned throughout the implementation process, including the composition of the Forum and the approval of the work plan. The work plan is to be reviewed in 2017, at the same time as the work plan to be established by the Commission for the implementation of the CEF Regulation, and in 2023. The work plan will analyse the current situation of the corridor and define needs such as bottlenecks, interoperability problems, including administrative and similar obstacles to optimal and sustainable multimodal transport services, and propose solutions, including financing.

3.3

The Communication also briefly mentions the two horizontal coordinators, for the Motorways of the Sea and the common railway signalling system, ERTMS.

3.4

The Communication also underlines the importance of cooperation between Core Network Corridors and the nine Rail Freight Corridors created under Regulation (EC) 913/2010 and which should be represented in the Core Network Corridor Forum. Also other projects are mentioned and the Communication expresses the hope that stakeholders involved in these projects will take an interest in the Corridor fora and contribute to the Corridor work plan.

3.5

The Marco Polo Initiative will continue but will be financed as an innovative and sustainable freight services matter linked to the Guidelines and financed under the CEF Regulation.

3.6

The remainder of the Communication deals with financing priorities under the CEF Regulation, with priority given to Corridor projects (cross-border, bottlenecks and multimodal). There is also a breakdown of funding priorities outside of the corridors, including a small amount for projects of the comprehensive network.

3.7

The Communication indicates its management principles for grants and its expectations from projects. It indicates that the Commission retains the prerogative to fund a project partially if part of it falls outside the set priorities. Delays or mismanagement of projects may lead to funding being reduced or withdrawn and reallocated. Intensity of financing for works within the ceilings set out in the CEF Regulation will be largely based on cost/benefit analyses and their relevance with respect to the corridor work plans.

3.8

Of the total EUR 26,3 billion available for TEN-T for the period 2014-2020, EUR 11,3 billion are reserved for cohesion countries. The amount reserved for cohesion countries will go entirely to predefined projects on the core network in those countries, as defined in Annex I to the CEF Regulation. Allocation will be consistent with the principles of the Cohesion Fund as regards allocation by country during the years 2014- 2016. Financing intensity will be higher than the normal TEN-T ceilings, since cohesion fund principles will apply. Otherwise governance and management principles will be the same. A special effort to support programme activities in cohesion countries will be made.

3.9

The Communication finally gives a brief description of development plans and resources reserved for the development of financial instruments. The conclusion is that the amount reserved for this project will largely depend on the market take-up of these instruments.

4.1

The EESC welcomes the Communication as a valuable aid to stakeholders with an interest in the development of the TEN-T network. Although its added value may be highest for stakeholders with an interest in a predefined project in Annex I to the CEF Regulation and who are on or involved in a Core Network Corridor, it is also of interest to other actors.

4.2

On a number of points the Communication goes beyond the text of the Guidelines and of the CEF Regulation and improves the possibilities for stakeholders to be proactive and optimise their planning. The EESC notes that a number of the issues raised in the Communication have been raised by the EESC in its opinions on the Guidelines proposal (2) and the CEF Regulation proposal (3).

4.3

The EESC believes that the Communication has the necessary qualities to be a useful tool for supporting the implementation of the TEN-T Guidelines and to inspire behaviour patterns that will improve cross-border cooperation between those concerned as well as the synergy effects between the different programmes indicated in the Communication.

4.4

Nevertheless, the EESC wishes to make a number of observations with a view to clarifying certain points so that the Communication can serve its purpose even more effectively.

4.5

The Governance structure, with the Coordinator, the Corridor Forum and the work plan for each Core Network Corridor, has the capacity to accelerate the implementation of the Core Network Corridors and the execution of the predefined projects within them as foreseen. It is therefore important that the Governance structure be established and that it get down to work as soon as possible. The EESC therefore welcomes the Communication's efforts in terms of planning the start-up of the Governance system and the drawing up of the work plan.

4.6

However, the EESC wishes to take this opportunity to express its regret that the governance system initially proposed for the Core Network Corridors has been somewhat weakened in comparison to the Commission Guidelines proposal (COM/2011/0650 final/2 — 2011/0294 (COD)). In the opinion of the EESC, an adequate implementation control is vital.

4.7

Given these circumstances, the EESC stresses the particular importance of a fixed construction planning that is coordinated and agreed between the European Commission, Member States and infrastructure owners. This will be a decisive factor of success for the improvement of the TEN T. In the opinion of the EESC it should be one of the main tasks of the coordinators to assist these coordination procedures and make them result in binding agreements, and to exercise their influence to have these agreements fulfilled. Payment of EU funding could be used to ensure both agreements and their implementation.

4.8

On the other hand, the EESC welcomes the provisions on engagement with public and private stakeholders in Article 50 of the Guidelines as a basis for a dialogue culture which is also given expression in the Communication (4). The EESC points out that it is important that a dialogue, also with the general public, starts early, to create transparency and build confidence.

4.9

With respect to the action of the Coordinator, the EESC emphasises the importance of the Coordinator's duties and the opportunities inherent to that post to resolve problems and contribute to the advancement of the Corridor concerned. The Coordinators also have a significant responsibility to ensure that the development of the Corridors overall harmoniously becomes part of the development of a unified, technically interoperable, sustainable and productive European Transport Area. For this to happen, one important prerequisite is that the Coordinator is granted adequate secretarial resources.

4.10

The EESC underlines that, both as a matter of credibility and in order to ensure maximum useful input, the Corridor Forum should contain representatives of all stakeholder groups, including national, regional and local authorities, market actors, employees from the sectors concerned, social partners and users.

4.11

The EESC stresses the importance of coherence between the planning in the Corridor work plans and the multiannual work plan to be decided by the Commission under the CEF Regulation. The EESC assumes, however, that this will not pose a problem, given the common priorities set out in the Communication and the list of predefined projects in Annex I to the CEF Regulation. Since it would seem that the respective plans will be drawn up in parallel, the EESC stresses the importance of the instructions set out in the Communication in this regard, on the basis of the provisions of the Guidelines and the CEF Regulation.

4.12

The EESC welcomes the importance that the Communication rightly attaches to the coordination of the Corridor activities with the Rail Freight Corridors (Regulation (EU) No 913/2010), the NAIADES II programme for inland waterways (COM/2013/0623 final), the ports initiative to improve the efficiency of ports (COM/2013/0295 final) and sustainability development projects, in order to avoid duplication of work and to create synergies. The EESC also regrets that there is no system for this coordination and no legal provision, with the exception of the obligation laid down in the Guidelines for cooperation between the Core Network Corridor and Rail Freight Corridors, where there is also a provision to the effect that relevant rail corridors should be represented in the Corridor Forum. The EESC wonders whether it might not be useful at least to ensure representation in the Corridor Forum of other projects or programmes with projects that are relevant for each Corridor. One example of such a project is ‘Swiftly Green’, which is a Green Corridor type of cross-border project with a geographical configuration that makes it relevant for the Nordic–Mediterranean Core Network Corridor. Given the importance that the Communication attaches to the Motorways of the Sea, this could also be the case with ongoing Motorways of the Sea projects on a given Corridor. In any case, the EESC maintains that work that is already carried out must be considered and existing infrastructures used as far as possible.

4.13

Similar issues as between different kinds of corridors or projects may arise when core network corridors cross or overlap. The EESC underlines that it is important that ways are found to deal with such situations in a transparent and resource efficient way.

4.14

The EESC notes the inherent dualism between the Corridor Governance structure and financing decisions, which are taken by the Commission, according to specific criteria and independently of the Corridor Governance structure. In this regard, the EESC appreciates the statement in the Communication recognising the relevance of the Corridor work plans with respect to financing decisions.

4.15

While noting the importance, in practical and formal terms, of the Core Network Corridors and their Governance structure, and the focus on them both in terms of administrative resources and financing, the EESC would reiterate the question already raised in its opinion on the proposal for the Guidelines as to whether the Core Network Corridors are not in fact a third and highest ranking category in the TEN-T network (5).

4.16

The EESC agrees with the priorities expressed in the Communication and takes note of the high priority given to rail and Motorway of the Sea links in particular between islands or peninsulas and the mainland and to measures to reduce the GHG footprint of transport. In this context, the EESC notes the sea links across the Baltic, in the North Sea across the Biscay and between a number of Mediterranean ports, all of which have the characteristic of shortening land transport distances and/or developing combined transport.

4.17

The EESC is concerned about the inadequacy of the EU budgetary resources available and the question marks surrounding the possibilities to develop alternative financing mechanisms, including project bonds and private public partnerships.

5.1

The EESC notes that the sum of the amounts suggested for EU co-funding with respect to the priorities set out in the Communication seems to exceed the sum available for funding. There is nothing to indicate that the possibilities of using financial instruments have been taken into account or to what extent.

5.2

The Communication attaches considerable importance to cost/benefit analyses as a tool for assessing a project. As regards projects in cohesion countries, the Communication refers to a specific method used for calculating cost/benefit when cohesion funds are being used. That method is not referred to with respect to non-cohesion countries, where reference is instead made to a recognised method. The EESC questions whether one or more recommended methods could not be suggested, for instance when calls are made. This might improve transparency and create a level playing field. It would mean going one step further that the publication of the underlying principles for assessment of cost–benefit and European added value provided for in Article 51 of the Guidelines.

5.3

The EESC in this context recalls the need to take into account social, environmental as well as economic aspects when studying projects, in accordance with the EU 2020 strategy. This includes making sure that planned infrastructure corresponds to actual needs and will be adequately used.

5.4

The option raised in the CEF Regulation to increase the use of innovative financial instruments for TEN-T financing is very briefly dealt with in the Communication. The main issue raised is that of possible market acceptance, which so far appears to be an open question. The EESC takes note of this and refers back to its comments in its abovementioned Opinions on the Guidelines proposal and the CEF Regulation proposal and its Opinion on the Project Bond Initiative (6). The EESC in this context also draws attention to the favourable market reception of projects launched during the project bond test period and the upcoming evaluation of the project bonds trial period.