The Europe of results. Europe still knows how to deliver. We should know this. But the image of Europe which is all too often broadcast is such a caricature and so far removed from reality, that when the occasion presents itself, we want to repeat it. This time, the occasion was the first annual report of the six coordinators who have accepted the delicate task of moving forward the six priority projects of the trans-European transport networks, and reported back on their work: the results achieved, the progress made in each project, and also the delays and difficulties. Last Thursday, when they made their presentation to the press, they were all there (with just one exception) with Commission vice-president Jacques Barrot, thus creating an opportunity to meet the people whose names have gone down in the history of Europe, such as Etienne Davignon and Karel Van Miert.
Why am I talking about what's been delivered? Because the Member States, which are linked politically and legally, who apply the same laws and rules, almost half of which share the same currency, are still separated by physical barriers. Within the Schengen zone there are no more border controls, but there are bottlenecks: the networks represent a way of getting rid of them for good.
The advantages. All six priority projects concern railways. This means that they respond not only to the requirement to improve the links between the countries of the Union; by allowing a proportion of road traffic to be transferred to rail transport, they also serve environmental and social objectives: less pollution, less road congestion, improved safety, fewer traffic jams, less petrol consumption. Five projects relate to specific corridors, to improve links between the North of the Union and the South (the rail link from Berlin to Palermo) and the East and West (the Lyons-Budapest axis south of the Alps, the Paris-Vienna-Bratislava link a bit further North), to make the Iberian peninsular less isolated by South (on the Mediterranean coast) and by North (on the Atlantic coast), to link the Baltic states to central Europe. The sixth project is cross-cutting: the gradual generalisation of the European rail signalling system, ERTMS, will mean an end to continual changes of system throughout the length of each corridor. All will support and facilitate the harmonious economic development of the European territory as a whole and contribute to the well-being of the citizens.
Six things worthy of note. We may say: this programme is well known; so what's new? The novelty is that political decisions in principle are gradually becoming reality. The report of the coordinators (which will be reproduced in our series EUROPE/Documents) sums this up, and it is worth noting that the whole of the programme is making progress despite the radical cut in European funding. For the period 2007-2013, the Commission had asked for 20 billion EUR; it got eight. Several observers forwarded the view that under these circumstances, the scale of the ambitions would also have to be radically cut. But the man in charge, Jacques Barrot, refused to go along with this. None of the planned projects have been abandoned; I am referring not only to the six priority projects, but to the whole of the programme. It is true that the financial planning has been revised, an often painful operation which, nonetheless, allows us to note the following:
-Community funding will focus on certain projects and, in particular, on the cross-border sections, which are so often neglected by the Member States, which tend- not surprisingly- to prioritise national sections. Spreading the available resources as thinly as possible would give satisfaction to a greater number of political and local authorities, but to the detriment of efficiency;
-a proportion of the money made available under the European regional policy (Structural and Cohesion Funds) will go to the transport networks, thus increasing the weight of EU subsidies out of the overall cost. In general, the Member States which receive these Funds are happy with this;
-the national authorities should make additional financial efforts. This is only fair, because they are the ones who saw the need to reduce the Community envelope;
-the European Investment Bank (EIB) has considerably increased the sum it will make available to the transport networks. It could pledge up to 20 billion EUR, compared to the 8 billion in direct subsidies out of the Community budget;
-recourse to innovative funding formulae, such as Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), will be stepped up for projects where appropriate;
-private investors should make greater efforts, which is not necessarily a negative thing, because investors logically tend to call for the maximum possible level of public funding, sometimes going beyond actual needs; they should get behind the joint effort.
As a matter of urgency. Now, the biggest priority is the Council's approval of the new financial regulation, Mr Barrot stressed in his press conference: the Commission should know how it can use the 8 billion EUR it has up to 2013 and know the rules relating to the other funding. Mr Barrot hopes that the green light will come before the end of the year. The position of the Finnish Presidency seems to be very close to the proposal of the Commission, which provides for support to a level at 20% of the total cost of the priority projects, rising to 30% for cross-border sections, and support of up to 50% for projects to implant the ERTMS system, which is vital if the network is to be effectively interconnected and interoperable as a whole.
Criticism and responses. Mr Barrot stressed that some of the decisions indicated in the reports "were unthinkable just a few months ago". Does this mean that everything is running like a dream? Far from it. The coordinators also stressed the shortcomings and uncertainties; several Member State commitments are still pending, which may lead to considerable delays in, or even the total abandonment, of one or other of the projects. Furthermore, certain members of the European Parliament and certain organisations have confirmed that they have their reservations, most of which are of an environmental nature (see our bulletin 9265).
Nonetheless, it would be missing the point to blame the project leaders for any negligence of the environmental dimensions, as close, not to say nitpicking, attention is paid to these. A large proportion of the merit for this goes without question to the Greens and the ecological organisations, but some of their criticism does not appear to have any grounds. Criticising the Brenner railway tunnel, they speak out against the lack of rail corridor in Italy: what is the point of a four-lane tunnel between Austria and Italy if there is then only one railway connection between Verona and Bologna? This is a fair point, but it leads them to the wrong conclusion; the response is not to abandon this tunnel, but to improve what it leads to! And how can the justification for the tunnel have been neglected? Austria cannot allow the traffic on its roads to increase as if there were no tomorrow, as it is already excessive and damaging and the fruit of endless debates. The Greens have prevailed to see one aspect of the issue. What is more, with the Lyons-Turin tunnel, it seems clear that it should be up to the Italian political authorities to appease the concerns of the inhabitants of the Val di Susa. As for the planned underground Central Station in Stuttgart, this is of no concern to Europe, as it will be contributing not a penny to its funding; this is an internal German affair. Just as any bridge between Sicily and mainland Italy is an internal Italian affair, a purely national project for which any small EU contribution could only come out of the Structural Fund already earmarked for the area.
Warnings. Of the coordinators, the speech by Etienne Davignon sounded almost like a warning. The project he is in charge of is a difficult one, due to the different gauge widths in Spain and Portugal compared to the rest of the continent; but this is something that must be dealt with if the Iberian peninsula is effectively to be linked to the rest of the EU. At the time of writing, levels of traffic in the Pyrenees are modest for travellers and insignificant for goods. European funding to standardise gauge widths could, if we include the Structural and Cohesion Funds, reach 16 billion EUR out of a total cost which has been put at 26 billion. However, certain authorities tend to give priority to national projects, such as the Lisbon-Porto TGV; but European funding can only be justified if the European interoperability of the networks is a given; and the "freight" aspect should be duly taken into account, otherwise the energy and environmental objectives will not be met.
For his part, Karel Van Miert asserted that the "point of no return" for the Brenner tunnel was reached when the first stone of the pilot tunnel was laid, with 50% EU funding. Pavel Telicka laid emphasis on the fact that the "Rail Baltica" project did not aim to create high-speed links or other evidence of technical prowess, but efficiently to link the Baltic States (where the standards for railway installations are modest) to the centre of the EU, with the Helsinki-Tallinn-Riga-Kaunas-Warsaw corridor. The European funding will come mainly from the Cohesion Fund. Peter Balasz said that he was reasonably optimistic about the Paris-Vienna-Bratislava axis (the new bridge in Kehl, over the Rhine, having been completed). As for the cross-cutting project, Karel Vinck stressed the need to move to the ERTMS control system within 10 or 12 years for the vast majority of the trans-European network. Currently, no fewer than 23 different systems are applied! Even between Brussels and Paris, the system changes six times! If there is no standardisation, it will be absolutely impossible to transfer a proportion of road traffic to the railways (with the advantages this will bring for energy consumption and the environment). European funding is vital to obtain results between now and 2013; otherwise it will spell disaster.
(F.R.)