|
|
Doc. 9095
9 May 2001
Transport technologies and European integration
Opinion1
Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Rapporteur: Mrs Lisbet Calner, Sweden, Socialist Group
I. Conclusions of the committee
1. The committee has examined the report prepared by Mr Yürür on behalf of the Committee on Science and Technology (Doc. 9011), and commends him on an excellent report and the general approach he has taken.
2. It would however like to suggest the following two amendments to the draft resolution contained in Doc. 9011.
i. At the end of paragraph 2 in the draft resolution, add the following sentence:
“Finally, the Assembly recalls its Resolution 1186 (1999) on European Transport Policies, forming part of its mandate as the parliamentary forum of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport.”
ii. After paragraph 6 in the draft resolution, add the following new paragraph:
“The Assembly draws particular attention to the severe transport problems in south-eastern Europe, made worse by the destruction caused during the Kosovo conflict. This includes international traffic on the Danube which is still at a virtual standstill”.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur
1. There is first of all recognition that all of Europe needs to be included in any European transport policy worthy of the name. This naturally very much includes central, eastern and south-eastern Europe. There is also a call for the realisation of a common European transport policy already pledged in the 1957 Treaty of Rome of the European Union. That such a policy has not yet come about, is disconcerting to say the least.
2. Furthermore, the report is right in recommending greater use of so-call ‘inter-modal – modal’ transport, especially by relying more on rail transport. The report also calls for the realisation of the European Union’s Trans-European Transport Networks Programme, which foresees numerous road, high-speed train and other transport links between all parts of Europe.
3. It would of course have been desirable if the report had referred to the considerable work carried out by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development on European Transport Policies, in its capacity as the Parliamentary Forum of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. The last such report, Resolution 1186 (1999) on European Transport Policies is, peculiarly enough, not at all mentioned in Mr Yürür’s report, even though one paragraph in the draft Resolution contained in Doc. 9011 is indeed identical to one paragraph in Resolution 1186 (1999)2.
4. This is all the more regrettable since Resolution 1186 and the accompanying report (Doc. 8170; Rapporteur, Mr Bloetzer, Switzerland) eloquently elaborates on many of the issues raised in the report of the Committee on Culture, Education and Science. For instance, Resolution 1186 strongly argues that Europe must build on the transport potential of all available modes of transport in order to achieve a better balance between them. It also says that particular emphasis should be placed on the capacity of different modes of transport to link up smoothly with one another.
5. Thus, moving goods traffic from road to rail is a good idea, in particular if we can use combined transport to a greater extent. Europe has numerous inland waterways which are often underused. Many parts of our continent are also surrounded by – or surround – seas. This opens up prospects for greater use of maritime transport, including short-distance sea-shipping. We must also aim for a wider range of options in the transport of people, in other word not only cars but also better collective transport in cities and more high speed trains where these are environmentally acceptable. This is the case especially on medium distances between bigger cities, where trains can reduce the need for both road and air transport.
6. Perhaps it is natural that the Economic Committee - more than the Committee on Culture, Education and Science - should emphasize the need to ensure fair competition between each transport sector. Mr Yürür’s report seems to caution against competition between transport modes when it says, in paragraph 3 of the draft resolution that “a common pan-European transport policy is not yet a reality and the transport market is developing more or less spontaneously, causing a strong competition between transport modes and transport enterprises”. The Economic Committee for its part has, in past reports, precisely favoured competition between transport modes, provided that such competition is fair and takes in account external costs that each mode of transport causes. The principles for competition should include safety, subsidies for modes of transport that are considered valuable for society as a whole, and the total cost to society and the environment of each mode of transport. Here, of course, road transport is seen a major culprit.
7. The report by Mr Yürür meritoriously discusses the harmful effects, not least on public health, of road transport and transport infrastructure in sensitive rural and mountainous regions, such as the Alps. It also urges greater use of rail transport in tunnels under the Alps, a recommendation very much in line with that of the Economic Committee.
8. The Yürür report does not, however, raise the particular transport problems in south-eastern Europe caused, made worse by the destruction caused during the Kosovo conflict. The Economic Committee in numerous reports – the last one being Recommendation 1493 (2001) on the Implementation of the Economic Aspects of the Stability Pact for South-eastern Europe (Doc. 8905; Rapporteur: Mr Kirilov) - has noted with regret that the international traffic on the Danube is still at a virtual standstill following the bombing of numerous bridges in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It has also noted that road, rail and air transport in south-eastern Europe is severely hampered, after a full two years following the end of that conflict.
9. These more critical aspects aside, your Rapporteur commends the Committee on Culture, Education and Science and its Rapporteur Mr Yürür on drawing the Assembly’s renewed attention to the crucial importance for Europe’s long-term economic development of an efficient transport system – and one using all different modes that exist, within countries but also between them. This is also vital for a harmonious development of Europe’s regions. Poor transport systems accelerate migration to big cities, which as a result grow to the point of suffering transport chaos. Big cities are, of course, also pools for economic growth. However, better still is a country, or a Europe, where economic activity is not concentrated solely to a few ‘mega-cities’ surrounded by depopulated regions in decline. A good transport system will permit even remote regions to flourish. This includes small and medium-sized enterprises, the importance of which the Yürür report commendably emphasises. An Italian member of the Economic Committee indeed argued that good motor roads between European countries are an essential contribution to European economic integration and that bottlenecks, including in his home country, was a negation of the European Union 1957 pledge to shape a common European Transport Policy.
10. Finally, it is worth pointing to the need to look beyond the transport sector proper in order to find remedies against the looming transport congestion chaos in Europe. The first has to do with regional policies. If companies can be encouraged to decentralise their production to different sites across a wider area, then this will reduce transportation costs compared to a situation where a company produces only in one location for distribution to all of Europe. This holds in particular for bulky products transported by road. Another area worth looking into is the location of people’s work place. For instance, if companies can be persuaded to permit employees to work from home on computers at peak traffic hours, then much of the road congestion could be eliminated. Many companies have already adopted this policy. If morning traffic can be spread over, say, four hours, instead of two, congestion would be cut in half. These and other subjects will no doubt be raised in the report to be prepared later in 2001 by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2002, on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, with Mrs Akgönenç of Turkey as the Economic Affairs Committee’s Rapporteur.
Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Committee seized for opinion: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Reference to committee: Doc.8024 and Reference No. 2266 of 18.3.1998
This opinion was approved by the committee on 24 April 2001.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Torbiörn, Mr Bertozzi, Ms Ramanauskaite and
Ms Kopaçi-Di Michele.
2 Thus, paragraph 7 v in the draft Resolution in Doc. 9011 is of identical wording with paragraph 6iii in Resolution 1186 (1999) in saying that “No part of Europe will be left outside the overall transport approach chosen, in order to permit all countries and regions to contribute to, and benefit from, harmonious overall growth and development.” The absence of any reference to Resolution 1186 is surely nothing more than an oversight and can be easily remedied through an amendment.