Obstacles still remain and they're quite substantial but overall the "initiative for growth and trans-European networks are going well. I am not the eternal sceptic like those who find it fitting to assert that everything is going badly for Europe. This issue is going in the right direction. The European Commission was efficient and Vice President Loyola de Palacio rediscovered her usual dynamism. The President of the EIB (European Investment Bank), Philippe Maystadt confirmed his desire to make the bank more of an instrument in Community policies, while taking into account the demands that a banking institution has to respect on the financial markets in favourable conditions, to the benefit of all its customers. The Van Miert report had already had already created a good basis for a broad reflection on transport infrastructure and brought the first responses. I believe that the initiatives of the three Member States, while doubling the work of the Commission, were positive because they enabled the debate to go beyond Community circles and the industrial and financial milieux concerned. It is true that Italy's programme put emphasis on several interesting projects, namely the Italian economy, and that the Franco-German programme prioritised joint French and German projects but the gaps were filled in and the discussion had the merit of alerting public opinion, which for once, displayed an interest in a European debate.
Some achievements. Some fundamental points appear to have already been acquired.
- the trans-European networks cannot in itself relaunch growth in the short term as its concrete effects will be gradual and sometimes slow but it could have a psychological effect that is immediate and contribute to creating the indispensable climate of confidence.
- the role of the EU and its institutions could be decisive. The fact in itself that a project receives a European label ( "declaration f European interest") will attract investors and facilitate funding. On this point I do not share the opinion of the Dutch Minister of Transport, who fears a surplus of bureaucratic complications. Procedures can be simplified to a maximum and the beneficial effects should outweigh by far the possible additional bureaucracy.
- Community support should involve an additional EU budgetary effort. Ms de Palacio put it forward but some Member States are reluctant or quite clearly opposed (the "no" of the United Kingdom is expressed not only in the discussion between Ministers of Finance but also in that of Ministers of Transport). It is an essential aspect which calls for innovative formulas and which will be broached definitively at the summit by going beyond any possible reticence by Ministers.
- the hypothesis of a Community loan (it already figures in the White Paper by Jacques Delors) but is not yet quite ripe. The idea of a Europe in debt continues to create fear despite reassuring explanations and possible benefits.
Some remarks about the networks. While waiting for the conclusions of the summit at the end of the week, the Commission documents and debates at the Ecofin and Transport Council and the European Parliament give rise to certain remarks.
Firstly: although they have drawn more attention than other aspects, the Commission proposals on the networks represent only an element in the European initiative for growth, which was agreed to and encouraged by the Thessaloniki summit. the Commission sent the European Council an interim report on the point which reviewed what had already been decided or planned for and what should still be further developed. The final version of this report will be submitted to the summit in December, including the list of action proposals in the three key areas; transport infrastructure, research and innovation. At the same time it is necessary to make progress in these areas to speed up the implementation of the "Lisbon Strategy", which the summit ill be examining in its April 2004 session. This week the summit is expected to approve certain principles and directions.
My second remark involves the specific way the trans-European transport networks. With regard to the content, I can only go back to the Commission's operational proposal, published in No. 2324/2325 in our EUROPE /Documents series, with the new expanded list of priority projects. The Commission has looked at all the projects in the Van Miert report and added the three railway projects that the Van Miert group had studied but which had been rejected, namely: 1) Rail Baltica (Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallin railway link); 2) "Eurocaprail" (where the "cap" letters indicate "European capitals- Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, which by 2012 should be linked by a high speed train; 3) the railway link of the intermodal corridor linking Greece, the Adriatic and the Ionian Sea. The Commission has highlighted the importance of the "sea highways" (alternatives to certain road and tunnel projects) by acknowledging, nevertheless, that building them will need the considerable customs and administrative problems sorting out, that port authorities are improved and direct access its assured to the ports, even in winter (notably in the Baltic Sea). If not, the sea highways will remain a great idea - a simple map proves to what point they could alleviate certain terrestrial itineraries - but are unfinished, as Karel Van Miert already stressed.
Some divergences on four priority projects. The Transport council "enthusiastically" welcomed the Commission proposals. The only two reservations were from: France, Netherlands and Belgium, which regretted the absence in the four projects, of the large scale canal, linking the Seine to the Escaut. Italy also which had done the same for the corridor between Bari and Greece by going through the Balkans. Ms de Palacio explained that it was legally impossible to insert a project that went through third countries, among Community projects but next year she will be presenting a project on corridors linking the European network to neighbouring countries. Certain criticism focused not on the exclusion of a project but on its inclusion: that of the bridge linking Sicily and the mainland. The European importance and usefulness of this bridge is opposed, especially in Italy itself.
Karel Van Miert has not changed his opinion on the rail link between Brussels and Luxembourg. In his opinion, it is of interest to some European civil servants but is not a "European liaison". He is afraid that by distancing itself from the criteria followed by his groups for designating priority projects, the way is being opened up to other demands that don't comply to these criteria, "inevitably, everyone is going to attempt to get their arguments across in favour of other projects and we can expect really stormy discussions". On the other hand, the Wallonian authorities are jubilant. They believe that the issue had not been badly presented to the Van Miert group as it represented more than just the modernisation of an internal line in Belgium: "Brussels,-Luxembourg is the missing link in the axis going from London to Italy".
The essential role of the EIB in finance. Recent developments appear quite positive in relation to the most sensitive aspect of funding. Certainly, reticence by certain governments to increase Community budget participation, is still strong but at the same time the essential role of the EBI is becoming clearer. Philippe Maystadt believes that this role could make Community loans a waste of time or at least unessential, an idea that still gives rise to opposition. The EIB, thanks to its "AAA" quoting on the stock markets could borrow in conditions very close to those from which Member States benefit (and the EU itself). This would encourage and facilitate the intervention of private investors. Certainly, the latter continue to request the EIB to do more and that it assumes a greater part of the risk in the projects. This is the rule of the game and private investors will never say that they are entirely satisfied. But the scope of what the EIB offers to large infrastructure projects is impressive compared to in the past: duration of loans of almost 20 years (up to 30, indeed 35); covering costs that in some cases go to 75% of the total; 10 year additional period for paying back, availability of additional EUR 50 bn for the networks and 40 bn for "research, development and innovation investments".
Conditions imposed by Finance Ministers to give the green light to the EIB package (we shouldn't forget that these Ministers are on the Bank's Board of Governors) do not appear to pose any problems to Mr Maystadt and his team and that they share them. The EIB will not request an increase in its capital before 2008 and that it will fund, from its own reserves, the new mobilisation of capital and will not of course, compromise is "triple A" quoting on the capital markets.
Commission proposals are less certain (opposed by some Member States and on which the Ecofin Council will not give its opinion till end of November). They aim to: a) increase support for the networks by the Union budget (it is currently EUR 600 annually); b) increase Community support ceiling to 30% for a project (current ceiling stands at 10%) for trans-border feeders; c) possibility of withdrawing priority projects from the list which Member States have not agreed to provide sufficient national funding or for which the carrying out is excessively behind schedule; d) create "European co-ordinators" for carrying out certain projects.
Act quickly. In Romano Prodi's defence at the European Parliament, of the European initiative for growth, he asserted that "the direct effects of investments will be shown with the opening of building sites, which could happen in many cases". The Commission will present a timetable for opening building sites in an effort to focus efforts and allow Heads of government to "lay down the best momentum for realaunching the economy as soon as possible". And so forth.
(F.R.)