OPINION ON THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL ON A TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

19. 12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/3
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION
by a unanimous vote:
The Committee approves the Commission's pro-
posal subject to the following comments:
1. General comments
1.1. The Committee is pleased to note that in the
third recital the Commission stresses the need to
apply the principles of accident prevention in the
design and construction of agricultural plant and
machinery too. This meets the wish expressed by the
Committee in its opinion of 6 July 1983 on another
draft Directive on the roll-over protection structures
of'vineyard'tractors (')•
2. Specific comments
Article 1.2
2.1. The Committee draws the Commission's
attention to the need to lay down ad hoc rules for
(') OJ No C 286, 26. 10. 1983, p. 2.
the power take-offs and their protective guards on
certain types of tractor (e.g. vineyard, stilt, etc.) on
account of the particular characteristics of these
tractors.
2.2. Consequently the Committee calls on the
Commission to redraft Article 1.2 to take into
account this need, either by excluding these tractors
from the scope of the Directive, or by amending
Tables 5 and 6 in Annex I, or by limiting its applica-
tion to the 'standard' tractors defined in Directives
77/536/EEC and 79/622/EEC.
Article 4.1
The Committee calls for the removal of the deadline
of 1 October 1984. Instead it would like to see the
Member States given 18 months in which to comply
with the Directive starting from the time the Direc-
tive is adopted by the Council.
Annexes
The Committee has also made several technical
comments which are contained in the section's
report (CES 649/83).
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1983.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Francis CEYRAC
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council on a transport
infrastructure experimental programme
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal
of the European Communities.
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION
On 23 December 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198, first paragraph,
second sentence of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983.
The full text of the opinion is as follows:
No C 341/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 19.12.83
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the second sentence of the first
paragraph of Article 198 of the Treaty establishing
the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the decision taken by the Council
on 23 December 1982, requesting it for an opinion
on the communication from the Commission to the
Council on a transport infrastructure experimental
programme,
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on
28 January 1983, instructing the Section for Trans-
port and Communications to draw up an opinion
on the matter,
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above
Section at its 151st meeting held on 14 September
1983,
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor-
teur, Mr Plank,
Having regard to the discussions at its 210th plenary
session held on 28 and 29 September 1983 (meeting
of 28 September),
Having regard to its previous opinions on transport
infrastructure and in particular the opinion on the
proposal for a Council Regulation concerning
financial support for transport infrastructure pro-
jects of Community interest ('), the memorandum
on the role of the Community in the development of
transport infrastructure (2), the report on bottlenecks
and the proposal for a Council Regulation on the
granting of limited financial support in the field of
transport infrastructure (3),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3600/82 of 30 December 1982 on the granting of
limited support in the field of transport infrastruc-
ture (4),
Wheras:
1. For years all the Community institutions, espe-
cially the Council, have repeatedly and force-
fully stressed the importance of a Community
infrastructure policy.
2. No Council meeting of Community transport
ministers passes without this question appearing
(') OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1977, p. 83 and OJ No C 300, 18. 11.
1980, p. 1.
(2) OJ No C 138,9.6. 1981, p. 61.
(3) OJ No C 296, 12. 11. 1982, p. 5.
(4) OJNoL376, 31. 12. 1982, p. 10.
on the agenda. However, the matter is always
put to one side again and the repeated commis-
sioning of Commission studies and reports
means that a lot of time is taken up which could
have been spent more usefully.
3. In all the Member States on chronic shortage of
finance has put a brake on construction work
and further complicated relations between the
various managing and financing bodies (State,
regions, local authorities, specialized agencies,
State enterprises, etc). Up to now this shortage
of funds has simply grown worse, especially as a
result of a certain tendency on the part of the
State to disengage itself from this area.
4. Thus the expansion and modernization of trans-
port infrastructures will in future be closely
dependent on the political will of the Member
States and the Council to give priority to the
provision of funds for investment; such a
development would be effectively reinforced by
the introduction of new financing structures and
in particular the creation of an appropriate
Community financial instrument (Intrafonds).
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION
unanimously:
1. General comments
1.1. A proposal for a Council Regulation concern-
ing financial support for transport infrastructure
projects of Community interest (5) has been pending
at the Council since 5 July 1976.
On 4 March 1980 the Commission submitted an
amendment to that proposal (6) under which infra-
structure projects of Community interest on the ter-
ritory of non-member countries would also qualify
for Community support.
The ESC endorsed both drafts
1.2. However, since the presentation of these pro-
posals, the Council has taken only one concrete
decision in this field. This was on 30 December
1982, when it adopted Regulation (EEC)
(5) OJ No C 207, 2. 9. 1976, p. 9.
(6) OJ No C 89, 10. 4. 1980, p. 4.
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/5
No 3600/82 on the granting of limited support in
the field of transport infrastructure and allocated
10 000 000 ECU for this purpose.
A further 15 million ECU have been earmarked so
far for limited support in 1983, but the requisite
legal instrument has still not been adopted. At its
7 June 1983 meeting the Council merely discussed
the 1976 Commission proposal once more and
'turned to the possible choice of projects to be
financed under the 1983 budget'. It did, however,
urge the Commission to submit as soon as possible
a proposal for a Regulation for a limited measure in
the transport infrastructure sector under the 1983
budget.
1.3. The Commission has meanwhile submitted
this proposal, though it disagrees with the Council
on the Regulation's period of validity; the Commis-
sion thinks that infrastructure measures extend over
a period of several years, but the Council is appar-
ently only envisaging a one-year programme at the
moment. The Committee has been consulted separ-
ately on this issue and will comment on it in another
opinion.
The Committee is fundamentally in favour of an
experimental programme for assessing the potential
benefits of a Community fund for expanding the
Community's transport infrastrucure. This accords
with its past opinions on this matter. For example,
in its abovementioned opinion on the 1979 memo-
randum the Committee stresses 'the advantage of
examining projects put forward by Member States
in order to test and evaluate projects'. The Com-
mittee also devoted considerable attention to infra-
structure problems and investments in its opinion of
28 October 1982 on transport policy in the 1980s (»)•
1.4. The Committee considers that the launching
of a common transport infrastructure policy in the
Community is overdue, for transport networks must
be coordinated if the Community is to operate as
one single market and a common transport market
is to exist, too. The design of the networks from the
technical and economic angles, the transhipment
capacity, the interchanges (port/rail and port/road
transhipment) and the border crossing points must
(•) OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982, p. 9.
be such as to ensure the smooth flow of local and
long-distance traffic. The Committee therefore
regrets that a coherent infrastructure policy, in line
with the general Committee position on this subject,
as expressed in its opinion of 28 October 1982, was
not introduced sooner.
1.5. The Commission's efforts and moves in this
direction are therefore emphatically welcomed and
supported by the Committee.
It is wholly of the view that the Community interest
in the creation of a European transport infrastruc-
ture must be reflected in a regular financial contri-
bution by the Community. Transit routes through
non-Community countries which link up major con-
urbations or development areas in the Community
should also qualify for Community support.
1.6. Accordingly, the Committee notes that:
— the drawing-up of an experimental programme
in the field of transport infrastructure is an
important step in the right direction, and
— the 15 000 000 ECU allocation in the 1983
budget (Article 781) may be extremely modest
but its significance as a pointer should not be
underestimated.
1.7. The Committee would urgently call upon the
Council to:
— make available in 1983 at least the 15 000 000
ECU earmarked, and
— give its approval to a muntiannual financial
instrument and to an experimental programme.
so that, at long last, it moves one step closer to ful-
filling its commitment to establish a common trans-
port infrastructure in the Community.
2. Specific comments
2.1. Guidelines for the evaluation of the Community
interest of infrastructure projects
2.1.1. Community interest criteria
The Committee agrees with the Commission that the
projects submitted by the Member States for the
experimental programme cannot be included more
or less automatically in this programme, but should
No C 341/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 19.12.83
have 'a strong socio-economic justification at the
national level' and also a potential Community
interest. This is necessary if only because of the fact
that the funds are limited.
2.1.2. The Commission report of 16 September
1981 entitled 'Community assistance for transport
infrastructure; the evaluation of "Community
interest" for decision making' sets out alternative
bottleneck criteria and criteria for profitability to the
Community as a whole which a project must meet if
it is to qualify for co-financing. These criteria are
derived from Article 1 of the 1976 Commission pro-
posal referred to in 1.1. However, these criteria are
not sufficient in themselves.
2.1.3. In order to be able to determine
— whether the advantages of carrying out a project
outweigh the disadvantages (in particular, the
expenditure involved), and
— what degree of priority should be given to each
project that meets the above criteria,
other important factors must be taken into account.
The Commission has commented on this in its
documents 'Community assistance for transport
infrastructure; the evaluation of "Community
interest" for decision making' (Doc. of 16 Septem-
ber 1981), in particular page 13 thereof, and 'Report
from the Commission to the Council — The Com-
munity interest of transport infrastructure invest-
ments: practical experience with the evaluation
methodology' (document of 7 December 1982), in
particular Annex 2, pp. 36 et seq.
These comments were taken into account by the
Committee in compiling the questionnaire
appended to this opinion.
2.1.4. The questionnaire makes an express distinc-
tion between:
— the easing of traffic congestion in conurbation
or on the links between them, and
— the improvement in the structure and level of
development of less-developed regions.
The Committee thinks that such a distinction is of
decisive importance when it comes to determining
the priority of projects in terms of Community
interest.
The importance of projects in Community conur-
bations will often be immediately clear because they
help to relieve bottlenecks. However, one should
not fail to recognize that projects which serve
mainly to open up less-developed areas are capable
of giving a considerable boost to these areas' struc-
tural development and may thus help to relieve
congestion in conurbations, too.
It is highly probable that no projects from the mari-
time transport, ports and air transport sectors have
been included in the first phase of the experimental
programme because this important distinction has
been overlooked.
2.1.5. The Committee therefore proposes that the
Commission take account of the questionnaire
when it examines
— which projects are to be finally included in the
first phase of the experimental programme, and
— which projects are to be supported out of the
funds to be made available for 1983.
The ESC will have to receive details on the individ-
ual projects, e.g. on the basis of its questionnaire,
before it can give its views on which projects are
worth supporting because of their paramount
importance for the Community.
2.2. Evaluation method
2.2.1. The purpose of the evaluation method is to
assess the relative importance of projects to the
Community as a whole on the basis of individual
details about the projects (collected, for example,
with the aid of the appended questionnaire).
2.2.2. This is done within the framework of Com-
munity-oriented cost-benefit assessments on the
basis of background data about the economic, social
and demographic structure of the Community
regions affected, and involves appraisal and predic-
tion of the transport and other repercussions.
19.12.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/7
The impact of the project is:
— quantified in physical units,
— evaluated in terms of Community interest.
2.2.3. It is doubtful whether all the repercussions
can be evaluated in financial terms, as envisaged in
the Commission final document (1981). Further-
more, in many respects such an approach would be
unsound theoretically. It would be better to have a
points rating given by experts, combined with a
Community interest weighting (based on an assess-
ment from the point of view of Community policy).
In this connection, the Committee considers that the
Commission should amend its document of 16 Sep-
tember 1981 on the evaluation of Community
interest in decision-making, so as to introduce a
multi-criteria analysis of the type described in
Annex 2 to that document.
2.2.4. At all events, the ESC must play a part in
evaluating and determining the importance of
infrastructure projects in terms of Community
policy.
3. Funding of Community infrastructure projects
3.1. Funds to be provided by the Community
3.1.1. The Commission sets out from two assump-
tions:
— that the Community will set aside approxi-
mately 300 000 000 ECU for Community infra-
structure support over the next three years,
— that, on average, the Community will not meet
more than 20 % of a project's total cost.
On this basis, the Commission puts the total cost of
the projects to be assisted under the experimental
programme at 1 500 000 000 ECU. If, however, the
actual budget disbursement for 1982 is taken to be
10 000 000 ECU and that for 1983 15 000 000 ECU,
Community support over three years will be only
50 000 000 ECU at the most. Under the assumptions
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1983.
set out above, this corresponds to a total cost of
only 250 000 000 ECU — a very disappointing
figure in the light of the potential impact on
employment of infrastructure investment.
3.1.2. If the Community wishes to make a serious
effort to speed up the implementation of infrastruc-
ture projects of Community interest, then co-financing
will have to be:
— adequate, and
— sustained over a certain period.
One possibility would be to have a programme
which covers a number of years, and to vary the
Community contribution in the light of the Com-
munity interest of the project concerned (i.e. the
contribution could be more than 20 %).
3.2. Methods of funding
The Committee would point out that the Govern-
ment of a Member State drew up a transport memo-
randum for the European Council in Stuttgart in
which it once again raised the question of infrastruc-
ture projects being funded out of the Community
budget.
The Committee thinks that it should be possible for
the Community to part-finance infrastructure pro-
jects in various ways, so as to make it easier for con-
siderable sums to be provided. In addition to invest-
ment grants from the Community budget, it should
be possible:
— to provide interest subsidies and repayment
guarantees for funds raised on the capital mar-
ket,
— to make use of the Community's Regional
Development Fund where projects are of major
importance for regional development,
— to give consideration to the possibility of estab-
lishing a special fund financed from national
charges for the use of infrastructure.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Francois CEYRAC
No C 341/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 12. 83
APPENDIX
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee
Questionnaire concerning the Community interest of selected transport infrastructure projects in the
Community
1. Name of project.
2. Does the project serve mainly to:
(a) ease traffic congestion in conurbations?
(b) improve the development of less-developed regions?
3. Extent of project, as measured by:
(a) area covered;
(b) number of tracks/lanes or other important lines of communication;
(c) investment.
4. Description of economic environment of the project:
(a) population of regions concerned;
(b) domestic product of regions concerned;
(c) transport links between regions concerned;
(d) trade between regions concerned.
5. Transport repercussions of the project:
(a) improvement of links between centres or conurbations, or with their supply, market or
recreation areas:
— reduction of time per journey,
— expected number of journeys (passengers and goods),
— reduction in transport costs.
(b) impact on accident risks;
(c) impact on other routes or modes of transport.
6. Financial repercussions:
(a) expected level and composition of investment (see also 3 (c));
(b) intended financing;
(c) expected level of operating and maintenance costs.
7. Economic repercussions:
(a) expected extent of the change in the economic situation in regions concerned (regional
domestic product);
(b) employment (during construction, and when the infrastructure is fully operational).
8. Regional repercussions:
(a) expected improvement in the structure and level of development of less-developed
regions;
19. 12. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 341/9
(b) expected easing of congestion in conurbations or on the links between them.
9. Environmental repercussions (expected reduction in environmental pollution — exhaust
gases, noise, use of land) in:
(a) conurbations;
(b) recreation areas.
10. Repercussions on energy consumption (expected reduction in energy used per passenger/
tonne mile, especially scare types of energy (petroleum)).
11. Social repercussions through improvement of the working conditions of those employed in
transport.
12. Distribution of overall repercussions between:
(a) the Member State or national traffic;
(b) Community or cross-frontier traffic.
The answers to the individual questions should as far as possible be illustrated by tables.
13. Has a cost-benefit assessment (cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-
dimensional effect analysis, etc.) been carried out for the scheme? What is the gist of this
assessment?
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a research programme to be
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community
and for the European Economic Community (1984 to 1987)
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro-
pean Communities No C 225 of 23 August 1983, page 7.
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION
On 24 June 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the
European Atomic Energy Community and Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the
European Economic Community.
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its
210th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 September 1983.
The full text of the opinion is as follows:
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Atomic Energy Community, and in particular
Article 7 thereof and the Treaty establishing the
European Economic Community, and in particular
Article 235 thereof,
of the European Communities on 1 July 1983 for an
opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision
adopting a research programme to be implemented
by the Joint Research Centre for the European
Atomic Energy Community and for the European
Economic Community (1984 to 1987) ('),
Having regard to the request made by the Council (') OJ No C 225, 23. 8. 1983.


Full & Egal Universal Law Academy