Brussels, 11/03/2004 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday the European Parliament amended its list of priority projects proposed by the European Commission for developing the Trans-European transport Network (TEN-T) (codecision, first reading). By adopting the report by British Conservative Philip Bradbourn on the draft decision amending Community orientations for developing TEN, the EP is also seeking to strengthen its role in the area.
By amending the list of priority projects ("Annex III"), the EP votes for: an extension of project No 6 on the railway axis linking Lyons to the Ukrainian border but threw out the idea of creating a Marseilles-Turin railway link; an extension of the central trans-Pyrenees railway link for freight from Sines-Madrid-Paris but rejected the creation of a new high capacity central trans-Pyrenees railway line; an improvement of navigability on the Rhine-Main-Danube river (project N o 18); the extension of the No .25 on the motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna to the Hungarian Croatian border; the extension of project No. 29 on the railway axis of the intermodal Corridor of the Ioanian/Adriatic/Black Sea for integrating the Balkans. Supporting the "sea highways" the EP is seeking to encourage the development of the Baltic Sea motorway to the North Sea ports as well as the development of an Atlantic Sea motorway and a motor way from the North Sea and Ireland (instead on integrating hem into a motorway from western Europe). It also added a further ten new projects: the Sein-Escaut river project (added to the list by the December 2003 Transport committee: EUROPE 6 December p 9) and a railway link project Prague/Linz-Ljubjana. The EP has, Howa, got rid of the controversial project aiming to build a rail/road bridge ion the Messina straits (231 for, 198 against, 17 abstentions).
The EP is also requesting consultation during the selection of the European co-ordinator (in charge of facilitating the implementation of certain projects of European interest) when the Commission decides to withdraw some of the "European interest" projects (for lateness). It is requesting that the Commission draw up a balance sheet every three years of the progress of the priority projects and of the level of financial commitment. If the Commission proposes an amendment of the list of the priority projects, the EP is demanding that is can submit this proposal to the Council as codecision. The EP also wants to be regularly informed about the progress of the "quick Start" programme (allowing the rapid start up of certain "ripe" projects: EUROPE 13 November p 7). By adopting amendments from the greens/EFA and the GUE/NGL, the EP is calling for a strategy study and assessment method of the cost/profits to be established in the future for priority projects before that receive Community funding. It is also insisting on a Community framework that is clearer concerning public aid for the sea highways.
During the debate, the rapporteur (like Georg Jarzembowski CDU) criticised the flexibility of the Commission on aid for sea highways, considering that they would not be able to authorise state aid "à la carte". French Socialist Gilles Savary insisted on public support for the sea highways. He also asked for Parliament to be associated about other amendments and to be informed about the implementation of projects. The GUE/NGL and the Greens/EFA violently denounced the Van Miert proposal and report. Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL described the Van Miert plan as too expensive and too dangerous to the environment. The Greens/EFA said that this reform of the trans-euroepan networks was not viable and according to Elisabeth Schroedter from Germany, constituted a mishmash of national interests. She also criticised certain priority projects, such as that for the Messina straits, which went against environmental legislation.
Transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio said that the addition of two projects was acceptable: the river project of Seine-Escaut and the railway link of Prague-Linz-Ljublijana. Nevertheless, for the second, "the green light from Member States is needed…if the Council does not agree, we can do nothing". In the same way, the extension of project 6 would be difficult "as the countries affected don't appear to agree", she added. De Palacio was very clear about the project integrating the Balkans, considering that they would be unable to foresee the effects in third countries affected. Neither did she agree to amendments to get rid of certain projects, as "these projects were agreed to by Van Miert and Member States".