The Future of Trans-European Corridor Developments in Eastern Europe

7/29/2019 The Future of Trans-European Corridor Developments in Eastern Europe

1/22

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

EUROPEAN TRANSPORT POLICY AND RESEARCH: WHAT

FUTURE?

Vienna, 17-18 May 1999

THE FUTURE OF TRANS-EUROPEAN CORRIDOR

DEVELOPMENTS IN EASTERN EUROPE

Dr. Dimitrios Tsamboulas

Ass. Professor

Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering

National Technical University of Athens


2/22

THE FUTURE OF TRANS-EUROPEAN CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENTS

IN EASTERN EUROPE

1. Introduction

The expansion of the TENs towards the Central and Eastern European Countries and the

success in enlarging the European Union to the East is a key objective for those countries that

have sought a closer union in Europe as the best guarantee of peace and prosperity in this

continent.

The initial idea came as Pan-European Transport corridors established by the Crete and

Helsinki conferences of European Ministers of Transport of 1994 and 1996. These would

appear to have placed the fundaments for infrastructure and sectoral development till the year

2015. Critics have tended to draw attention to the inconsistency between the ambitious

corridor plans on the one hand and the very limited fund availability on the other, a fact that

might hinder the development of these Corridors. With the creation of the TINA (Transport

Infrastructure Needs Assessment) process, an enormous task has been undertaken to put all

above ideas in the right perspective. The TEN developments in Eastern Europe constitute a

long process, which has started with the Pan-European Corridors and it was more defined

with the backbone multimodal network of TINA. The main modes considered are road and

rail.

The enlargement of E.U. under the scope of which all TEN development will take place -is

envisaged as a global, inclusive and evolutionary process, which will develop in stages, at asuitable pace for each candidate country according to its degree of readiness. However, it is

expected to bring greater heterogeneity to the Union, although some sectoral and regional

adjustment problems might occur. These could limit the benefits of enlargement and make

more difficult the further development of the "acquis communautaire" unless adequate

preparations are made. For this reason the Commission proposed in Agenda 2.000 a series of

principles which must govern the European Union's approach: the acceptance and application

of the acquis communautaire from the moment of accession; the acceptance of transitional

measures for the harmonisation -but not exceptions- for fully justified cases; a periodic review

2


3/22

on the basis of the Commission's reports on the progress done by the applicants during the

accession negotiations. Furthermore, any transitional periods must in any event be limited,

both in scope and duration.

For the applicant countries the benefits of accession are quite substantial: frontier-free

markets for their capital, goods and services; access to world markets on terms negotiated by

the Union; freedom of movement for people; the prospect of further financial support for their

restructuring and modernisation; a stable political and economic environment for growth and

prosperity, and closer social and cultural links with other European people.

For the countries of Western Europe too, a wider European Union encompassing Central and

Eastern Europe would provide bigger and growing barrier-free markets, offer the prospect of

an even stronger European global voice and ensure liberty and stability across the continent

for the first time.

2. Background

With the disintegration of the COMECON in 1990 followed by signing of the Association

Agreements between the European Union and the CEEC, exchanges were greatly stimulated:

Private travel became significantly easier

Movement of goods, generated by major re-orientations in foreign trade by the CEEC, was

extensively modified and the flow of imports and exports between the EU and the CEEC

grew appreciably in just a few years.

Some of more general provisions in the association agreements, which apply directly to

transport, include a number of conditions relevant for the development of TENs in Eastern

Europe.

After the conclusion of the first series of the Association Agreements, the Member States'

Governments agreed at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 "that the associated

countries in Central and Eastern Europe shall become members of the European Union ..."

and "Accession will take place as soon as an associated country is able to assume the

3


4/22

obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required."

Then, in December 1994, the Essen European Council laid down a general pre-accession

strategy for the countries which had signed Europe Agreements, re-iterated the view that "the

Union's capacity to absorb new Members ... is an important consideration in the general

interest of both the Union and the candidate countries", and put forward the idea of a

"structured relationship" to prepare for the accession of new members.

Among the factors, which helped stretch out (and in some cases alleviate) the negative effects

of the deep economic crisis (i.e. the reduction in GDP and -for the transport sector- a

considerable overall drop in transport needs before the first effects of the economic upswing

were felt in 1993), two should be noted:

Direct investments by western companies grew considerably in just a few years and for the

CEEC rose from about 300 million dollars in 1990 to 10.7 billion dollars in 1995. This was

a direct result of economic liberalisation, the creation of legal and regulatory frameworks

necessary for the development of the private sector, and the relaxation of national

regulations concerning foreign investments.

Foreign trade between the CEEC and the EU more than doubled between 1990 and 1994,

rising on average from 12.5 billion Euros to 28.6 billion Euros, with an overall positive

balance in favour of the EU of just under 5 billion Euros in 1994.

Trade with other countries, which prior to 1989 had been primarily with the CIS and the

other CEEC, fell below these new commercial figures and, except Bulgaria, trade relations

between the EU and the CEEC now account on average for more than 40 per cent of total

exports and more than 30% of imports by the CEEC.

In 1995, the ten CEC candidate countries had a population of 106 million people, slightly

more than a quarter of the population of the EU; they had an average per capita gross

domestic product about 2,250 Euros, which is only 13% of the per capita GDP of the EU in

terms of purchasing power parity. In absolute terms it is less than 5% of EU average. For the

sake of comparison, and since at least 50% of the costs must be covered from foreign credits

or funds, it is perhaps wiser to discuss infrastructure investments in terms of current prices

and exchange rates.

An important element for the future of TEN development in Eastern Europe, is the car

ownership. The average car ownership is about 189 cars per capita, less than half the car

4


5/22

density in the EU. While car ownership in the EU is becoming less important in relation to the

GDP, car ownership is one of the driving forces of GDP growth in the acceding countries.

Such data constitute a starting point for extrapolations for future traffic volumes on the road

TENs.

However, the most important assumptions relate to economic growth in the CEEC.

Extrapolations for the following years are made under the assumption that growth rates will

gradually converge with average growth rates in the Union. However, it is assumed that they

are always higher than the growth rates of the EU, at least for the next 10-15 years. Based on

this assumption it is likely that the GDP in all acceding countries will double between now

and the year 2015, according to an average/normal scenario. On the other hand, an optimistic

scenario assumes that average rates in the acceding countries will reach levels of 7% and

maintain this level until 5 years after accession and will then slowly converge with EU levels

which will keep a level between 2 and 3% growth rates. This would result in a tripling of

annual GDP by 2015. On the other extreme, the more pessimistic scenario would assume that

GDP growth rates would be equal to or slightly less than EU average growth rate of 2.5%

expected for the next 15 years. This very negative assumption would imply that the acceding

countries would not benefit at all from the accession process, a fairly unlikely hypothesis.

In this context there has been a debate on how infrastructure investments should relate to the

GDP. Each EU member state invests between slightly under 1% and up to 2% of GDP in

European Union-relevant transport infrastructures. On average the level was 1.2% of GDP in

the period from 1980 to 1992; this figure does not however concern only EU relevant

transport infrastructure, but also projects of purely national importance. Studies from the

PHARE programme confirmed however that the acceding countries needed to somewhat

more than these rates. In the EU most of the investments have already been made, while in the

acceding countries major upgrading is required over the coming years. On the other hand, a

forecasted high share of GDP for transport infrastructure during the first years, would

probably be considered unrealistic, since the sector of transport infrastructure investments is

one of many, for which the acceding countries have to undertake investments. Along this

reasoning, the TINA groups agreed to accept, as an indicator for the rationally planned

transport infrastructure investments, that their cost should not, on average, exceed 1.5% of the

GDP in the coming years.

5


6/22

Assuming that it is within the national objectives to achieve this level of investment, an

infrastructure investment bracket (confidence range) for each country can be defined, based

on the different growth scenarios between now and 2015 (Table 1).

Table 1: Accumulated GDP 1998 - 2015 in billion Euros

Growth CZ EST HUN PL SLV LAT LIT ROM SLK BUL

Low 14.5 1.1 12.7 40.4 6.0 1.3 1.8 9.8 5.8 3.0

Medium 17.4 1.1 13.9 48.2 6.6 1.4 2.0 10.5 6.4 3.1

High 20.2 1.4 16.5 54.6 7.9 1.6 2.2 11.9 7.8 5.4

Source: TINA

3. Conditions and prospects for the expansion of TENs

The conditions for the expansion of TENs to Eastern Europe are presented for two geographic

areas separately: (i) CEEC and (ii) Balkans and CIS

CEECs

In this socio-economic environment, the Commission was asked by the European Council toprepare before the end of 1996 its opinions on accession of the Central European candidate

countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,

Slovenia and Slovakia (later Cyprus was added).

Preparations were since put under way, at least on institutional level. Despite the initial

enthusiasm, in the field of transport, the objective was soon tempered by some concern that,

besides many fine declarations, the EU is not yet sufficiently far advanced in preparing the

process to ensure that it is a success for both the EU and the CEEC.

As one primarily goal, the sustainable mobility was introduced. The achievement of which

requires bringing closer the enlarged European Union, and thus the means to bring about a

coherent, integrated and competitive transport sector should be secured for the new entrants.

Consequently, the efforts to increase the patronage of other than road modes should be

strengthened, by developing genuinely competitive rail and inland waterways alternatives to

6


7/22

road. This will obviously require real progress towards implementing a policy of fair and

efficient transport pricing.

These developments are necessary in any case if the goals of the common transport policy are

to be realised. Their achievement in the enlarged Union will however demand much more

effort, since the candidate countries start from a different point. The pre-accession strategy

launched in Essen has already become a genuine instrument for developing co-operation

between the Union and the candidate countries, leading to their effective integration into the

common transport system. That overall strategy requires establishing a real mechanism to

back up the efforts of the individual countries in beginning now their adjustment to the

demands of their future accession.

The way forward is expected to affect three different areas of transport policy.

1. Firstly, the creation of physical links which bind the European Union and the new

members together.

The Association Agreements with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe foresee that

a priority area of co-operation shall be "construction and modernization, on major routes of

common interest and Trans-European links" of transport infrastructure.

Broad guidelines for transport infrastructure development in the Central and Eastern

European countries were drafted in the 2nd Pan-European Transport Conference in Crete

in 1994 where nine multimodal transport corridors of high priority were agreed. The

development of these corridors is monitored within the G24 framework and some

promising results have already been obtained, partly through the signature of Memoranda

of Understanding for a number of the corridors, as well as through the gearing of

Community support to these corridors, both financially and politically.

Since a number of Central and Eastern European countries have now applied for

membership to the European Union and their accession will require the inclusion of the

extensions of the Trans-European (Transport) Network in their transport systems (existing

and future); the assessment of their pragmatic transport infrastructure needs is therefore

essential.

7


8/22

As part of the Structured Dialogue with the candidate countries the Commission services

have, in response to the request of the joint meeting of the Council and CEC Transport

Ministers in September 1995, launched a process - the Transport Infrastructure Needs

Assessment (TINA) - which is intended to help to identify the broad lines of necessary

measures regarding TENs to be taken in the candidate countries, and priorities and projects

of common interest. In particular, the economic viability of projects and possible ways of

financing them will be examined. The TINA project is planned to deliver its final report in

1999.

Following the Essen Council, the Commission has developed PHARE in the direction of a

Multi-annual financial instrument and significantly increased the investment focus. Today

up to 25 % of the total PHARE appropriations can be made available for the co-financing

of infrastructure projects notably related to the development of Trans-European-Networks

in Eastern Europe. Multi-annual investment programmes for the development of Trans-

European-Networks covering the period 1995 to 1999 have been negotiated with all the

Partner Countries with the close involvement of the International Financial Institutions and

mainly with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the

European Investment Bank (EIB). The contracted PHARE contribution for the co-

financing of infrastructure projects related to the Trans-European Transport Network is

approximately 600 MECU for all accession countries until the end of 1998.

The approach followed for the development of transport infrastructure in CEEC must

obviously go beyond the corridor approach taken at the second pan-European conference

in Crete in 1994. It should lead to the development of a genuinely multimodal transport

network that allows sustainable, speedy and cost-effective transport services across the

length and breadth of a much larger Union and Single Market. In order to do so, all parties

concerned should agree on an overall approach to the development of TENs in the

candidate countries, to identify priorities and projects of common interest and to examine

the economic viability of projects and possible ways of financing them.

The development of an integrated transport infrastructure in Europe will pose enormous

financial requirements. Pressure on constrained national budgets makes the funding of

infrastructure increasingly problematic. As a result, it is questionable whether enough

resources can be mobilised in the time period up to accession, with the consequent risk of a

8


9/22

major system breakdown due to increasing congestion. Such a breakdown could undermine

the entire integration process, since it would seriously limit goods flows and movement of

persons. Clearly the extent of the financial resources required means that there is a need

for supplementary arrangements and non-conventional financing with private sector

involvement. A lot is needed to be done to stimulate this involvement.

2. Secondly, the acceptance of the Acquis Communautaires. This means not only achieving

the necessary regulatory framework to allow the free movement of people and of goods,

and ensuring the conditions for doing this, but also the implementation of Community

safety, legal, labour and other transport related requirements. The importance of improving

safety should also be noted, especially in aviation. Road safety is a common problem too

(it is difficult for the EU to accept 74.0000 deaths in 1994 in the countries of the ECMT).

The ongoing process of market integration must be accelerated to prepare the future full

economic integration that will result from accession to the European Union. In the

transport sector this has to take place progressively, based on a dual strategy whereby

market opening goes hand in hand with approximation of legislation. Moreover, legislation

is only half the battle; implementation and enforcement structures must not be forgotten,

since otherwise transport legislation has no effect.

It is common knowledge that the economic and social costs of taking over the Community

standards in the transport sector are quite high. It is therefore necessary, in parallel with the

legislative process in Central Europe, to make real progress in improving market access, as

the Community committed itself to do in the Association Agreements.

Against this background, it should be underlined that the Commission is in the process of

convincing Member States of the urgent need to begin wide-ranging negotiations on

market liberalisation in all transport modes. This process which is soon expected to

conclude an agreement in inland waterways is far less advanced in road goods transport

and in air transport.

3. Last but not least, the progress of the new members for their future participation in the

European Union institutions. Apart from very specific issues, such as infrastructure, efforts

should also concentrate on the key issues of transport policy - pricing, rail and combined

transport for example.

9


10/22

Equally important, as Europe is getting closer to the integration of transport markets, is the

social dimension of the process, which should not be overlooked. Standards among the

applicant countries are generally low in the social sphere. Too slow an adaptation of their

standards could undermine the unitary character of the acquis and possibly distort the

operation of the single market. It will be important that, over the coming years, a dialogue is

developed with the social partners in the candidate countries which can help the EU to address

the social problems resulting from the adjustments their societies are going through, as they

move towards accession.

CIS and the Balkans

The European part of the former Soviet Union must, naturally, be considered part of the pan-

European transport system. Three out of the nine Crete corridors go through the territories of

the Newly Independent States (NIS) or Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and these

countries were therefore involved in the review of the Crete corridors in the Third Pan-

European Transport Conference in Helsinki in June 1997.

Unlike the PHARE Programme, the TACIS Programme, created for channelling technical and

material support from the European Union to the NIS, has been and still is less transport

oriented. Transport is, however, growing in importance and, since 1992, both the Inter-State

Programme and the large-scale TRACECA programme have also provided financial support

to transport. The new TACIS Regulation has made it possible to grant up to 10% of the

annual budget for small transport infrastructure projects. Furthermore, the newly introduced

Cross Border Co-operation Programme offers a budget of 30 MECU.

As it concerns the Balkan region (countries other than Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia), the

EU has negotiated partnership and co-operation agreements, each of which has a substantial

transport content. These items in the agreements are not different from the Association

Agreements. In former Yugoslavia, and until the recent events in Kosovo, there have been

contacts for a series of transport agreements similar to that already in force with Slovenia.

However, the war in the region overturned any expectations for the development of the

transport network of the area. This means that the main international land route linking

Greece, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(FYROM) with the EU is not available and this places considerable pressures on alternative

land routes through Bulgaria and Romania.

10


11/22

The European Commission, on behalf of the EU, has invested considerable funds in both

infrastructure and institutional support to countries in the region over recent years and has, in

conjunction with the recipient countries, commissioned a number of transport studies. After

the war, special attention is expected to be given for integrating fully the countries of former

Yugoslavia into the Pan-European transport system, as a support for the reconstruction and

reintegration of the region. Former Yugoslavia is not, from the perspective of transport

networks, different than the other CEECs. In addition, it constitutes a vital pre-requisite for

the linking the TENs of other Balkan countries with the TENs of European Union.

4. What scenarios for the TENs expansion?

In the previous paragraph the main economic and policy aspects and conditions for the TENs

extension to Eastern Europe are presented. However, significant disparities in macro-

economic indicators and a large variety of regional socio-economic and geopolitical situations

complicate any possible scenario elaboration for the future of TENs.

The elaboration of transport scenarios requires the consideration of relevant parameters at two

complementary scales. The first one, -so-called global approach- examines the socio-

economic data and the driving forces of transport demand. The second scale focuses on

specific geographical schemes, at a regional level. A better understanding of regional

particularities and local scenarios will contribute to the evaluation and validation of the

global European transport scenarios.

Considering the overall available socio-economic data, three distinct concentric circles in

the wider non-EU European area can be distinguished. The distinction of the European

territory into these circles is based on macro-economic considerations, as well as on the study

of regional disparities, particular trade patterns at the regional scale, internal competition and

cultural aspects.

The first circle includes Poland, Hungary, Czech republic and Slovenia, Slovakia and the

Baltic States. The second circle includes Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, FYROM, Bosnia-

11


12/22

Herzegovina and ex-Yugoslavia (as specific case). Finally, the CIS countries are included in

the third circle.

This variation is expected to influence the time-horizon of accession of the countries

concerned in the EU. In addition, the stage of economic transition at each zone is expected to

impact the extension and implementation of TENs. Besides, any approach to develop

scenarios on the future of TEN should differ from zone to zone.

The countries of the first circle are in a relatively stable development process, with a

common framework of strategies, similar strategic policy objectives, and with planning

procedures directly supported by the European Union, due to the progress of their priority

in the enlargement process of EU. Disparities and regional particularities in these countries

are limited, social cohesion is more or less in progress and the national economic policy is

clearly oriented to the Western Europe economic system. This orientation is reflected on the

TEN sections concerning these countries. The geographical proximity and common borders

with Central EU member-states, make a necessity the extension of TENs in theses countries.

The various Programmes for financing transport infrastructure projects, such as PHARE,

present satisfactory performance and several projects are accomplished or on going. The

extension of TEN to these countries is expected to finish in short or medium term. We can

distinguish the Central European regional network with northeastern Austria, western

Slovakia, and the south of the Czech Republic, and Western Hungary at the core. Additional

connections are with Germany from Poland and Czech republic. In particular, the recent

regional administrative reform in Poland suggests the promotion of the idea of decentralised

centres, which could suggest also a further prioritisation towards connecting these or these

and the regions surrounding them. In addition for the countries in the first circle there are

positive boundary conditions for the development of the road and rail network. Consequently

the developments of TENs have a westward orientation towards Central EU countries. The

Baltic Sea regional network demonstrates a clear orientation of all Baltic States to their

respective ports, which is natural since they do not have any land borders with an EU country.

The countries of the second circle present to a large extent heterogeneity, variety and high

uncertainty of national contexts. A strategic objective of these countries is the integration in

the European Union, although, in absence of a common institutional framework, national

policies and procedures vary considerably. Moreover, even if the strategic options are similar,

12


13/22

short and medium term policy objectives could create conflict among the different countries.

In addition, important deviations can be identified in the stage of development of these

countries. These horizontal conflicts are reflected on the process of TEN implementation.

Even if the Pan-European corridors are defined, the respective routes and alignments are

subjected to strong bargaining procedures among national representations. Finally, conflicts

arise within countries, since this circle presents stronger spatial polarisations of economic

growth, creating disparities. It is interesting to note that these countries have no borders with

central European countries, and only three of them have borders with Greece.

These problems are accentuated due to the war in Yugoslavia. The duration and impact of the

war can not yet be foreseen and assessed. In any case, the impact from the war will stay for a

long time. Uncertainty at the social and economic level does not allow to elaborate scenarios

for TENs. Any future evolution depends on the reconstruction procedures and policy. This

will be strongly influenced by the power relationships at the end of the war, not clearly

defined till now. The war is expected to influence and re-orientate not only the countries

directly involved, but also the neighboring countries, since economic inter-relationship and

trade patterns are being changed. Consequently, the TEN extensions to the countries of the

second circle seem to be a long-term procedure and a number of plans might be reconsidered.

As example, the implementation of corridor 10 (crossing Yugoslavia) is postponed and

possibly re-examined as far as the respective routes are concerned.

The third circle concerns countries in an early stage of transition. In this case, national policy

objectives are not yet clearly formulated (with the corresponding implementation plans) as far

as the economic orientation is concerned. Scenarios on the future of TENs would

considerably differ, according to definitions of national strategies of Black Sea countries,

particularly Russia and Ukraine. In short and medium term, the region presents certain trends

to a east-west orientation, mainly centered on west-east Pan-European corridors as defined by

the Pan-European Conferences. However, there are important opportunities for the

development of intra-region trade, on a new free market basis in the framework of

globalisation, which would bring significant advantages for the region and reduce the

dependencies from the west. Such opportunities, derived from the economic interest groups

and the large industrial and military infrastructure, would completely change the patterns

appearing for the short-term development.

13


14/22

Considering future scenarios, the uncertainty concerning the countries of the second and third

circle is inter-related to a number of strategic policy objectives of the European Union in the

future. EU policy is continuously being formed in relation to the international context. Thus,

geopolitical changes of worldwide importance might re-orientate EU policy. As example,

assuming that growth rates in the countries of second circle decrease significantly, due to

unforeseeable events; the European Union might develop an in-depth political integration

instead of a simply economic enlargement. Three possible scenarios arise as far as European

Union policy/approximation of legislation and economic development is concerned:

High growth and slow integration

Low growth and fast integration

Low growth and slow integration

Consequently, global and local components are inter-related. The future of TENs will

result from strategic options at both levels. For the time being, indices show that the first

circle of countries presents a quite foreseeable environment and follows the scenario of fast

integration. The countries of the second circle will participate in a low integration process.

The CIS countries might be differently integrated, through a wider globalisation process.

5. Infrastructural patterns and operational conditions for the expansion of

TEN in Eastern Europe

Before 1989 trade and transport flow patterns within COMECON member-states showed a

dense network and strong integration of productive activities in the CEES and CIS countries.

Economic and also transport policies of COMECON countries were integrated and

coordinated, on the basis of a centralised planning. However, this integrated transport system

in COMECON was characterised by a strong introversion. Flow patterns between

COMECON and Western Europe was restricted. This situation was reflected on the

infrastructure developments. In the exchanges within COMECON, rail transport has a major

importance, at a time when road transport was representing the lions share in Western

Europe. In addition, interoperability and interconnectivity between these large regions was

limited, due to infrastructural constraints. In several cases, rail gauges differ and in certain

cases, the road networks of the two parts of Europe do not present territorial continuity.

14


15/22

Moreover, at the interfaces between the two integrated networks, several operational,

regulatory and institutional conditions restricted the network integration.

Nowadays, after the dissolution of COMECON, intra-trade is lost. Each country tries to

develop its own economic power base. The main current orientation of each country of the

region is to develop -on the individual basis- bilateral trade with EU countries. As it

concerns production and commerce, there is not any common planning process among these

countries.

The previous chapter showed the fundamental orientations and trends, distinguishing three

circles of countries in Eastern Europe. The first circle re-oriented the previous network

schemes towards a West-east Europe direction. The second circle follows similar strategic

objectives, but the implementation process is rather slow. The third circle is still based on a

dense and homogeneous infrastructural pattern as derived from the former USSR.

However, except for the definition of corridors, the implementation of TEN refers to two

other levels: the definition of routes and alignments and the integration of services and

procedures as well related to the transport of passengers and goods. Considering the actual

stage of TEN expansions in the first circle of Eastern European countries, where infrastructure

projects are in faster progress, several regulatory, operational and administrative barriers to

the functional integration of the network arise. These barriers should be examined and

conduct to appropriate policy tools or other measures for accelerating the integration process.

For the above, the application of the Barrier Model developed by the TENASSESS project is

of great relevance. With a barrier we principally mean an obstacle that prevents goals from

being realised. In practice we usually simplify the analysis and focus on the implementation

of specific projects or policy initiatives. These transport projects usually support the goals set

by the Accession agreements. However they have to pass through an adequate assessment

methodology which can be the PAM developed in TENASSESS. If we avoid or overcome

barriers that prevent these projects from being realised in time we, at same time, support the

realisation of set goals. The structure of the Barrier Model consists of well-structured checks

according to: stage of the decision making process and policy area. According to the related

methodology in order to provide the input necessary, the Barrier Model distinguishes the

following stages the decision making process has to pass: conceptual phase, planning phase,

decision phase, implementation phase, and operation phase. Regarding the policy areas the

Model distinguish 5 different sectors: technique, administration, legislation/regulation,official politics, and informal politics.

15


16/22

The conditions affecting transport operations produce three main difficulties or types of

barriers: (a) ones associated with the characteristics of the vehicle fleets used, which in most

cases are old and do not comply with the EU standards and as such they cannot circulate in

EU, unless they are replaced by new. On the other hand the replacement requires funds which

are available; (b) the poor quality of existing road infrastructures and the absence of adequate

transport corridors that will constitute a multimodal network result in increases of generalised

transport costs, and therefore they hinder the economic development, which in turn could turn

the construction of infrastructure not feasible; and (c) the poor quality of facilities at border

crossing points is partly responsible for the waiting times. The customs and transit procedures

as well as policies for issuing of visas, resulting in unacceptable waiting times further

aggregate this.

All the above will make difficult not only the physical construction, but also the operations of

the TENs in Eastern Europe.

Vehicles

The adaptation of vehicle fleets to EU standards is progressing, but remains slow, in view of

the high cost of replacing existing fleets and the difficulties that companies have in obtaining

the financial resources necessary for the acquisition of new vehicles. If one considers more

particularly the portion of the transport vehicle fleet usually used for international transport

(articulated lorries with a maximum laden weight of 40 tonnes), the total number of vehicles

corresponding to the most recent emission and safety standards is in fact quite small.

To cope with the problem of standards, the companies gear their vehicle fleets according to

destinations, assigning the newest vehicles to traffic with EU countries and the older vehicles

to traffic within the CEEC, the CIS States and the Middle East. However, even if the

standards are met in some new vehicles -as it concerns freight transport there is lack of

specialised equipment, such as chemical and alimentary (e.g. transport of milk) tankers, and

the latest refrigerated containers, which are expensive but meet the requirements of

international loaders. The potential use of these vehicles by the CEEC transport operators is,

to a certain extend, associated with the difficulties in implementing the specialised

international agreements (ADR, ATP in particular), which require nationally applied

measures not yet adopted by certain countries. This statement is specifically valid for the non-

16


17/22

EU Balkan countries. Thus building a modern infrastructure as the TENs but not adapting the

vehicles to conform to the EU safety and environmental standards is a great problem. The

difference in the levels of harmonisation will affect the TENs implementation actions.

Infrastructures and border crossings

The poor quality and inadequacy of road infrastructures and the waiting times at borders have

been identified in many studies as being two of the principal barriers to international

exchanges and the integration of European inland transport markets. In terms of the transport

company operations (passengers and goods), the poor condition of the road infrastructure

results in an increase in transport times due to road network shortcomings: congestion of

certain sectors of routes, low speed, inadequate level of safety, etc. and increased operating

costs.

Of the two difficulties, it is the second, concerning the border crossings, that we shall consider

first and foremost. Both constitute physical barriers, which hinders exchanges. However,

the methods of assessing the barriers resulting from road infrastructures, and the technical and

financial solutions required to overcome them, form the subject of specialised studies, the

contents of which is beyond the scope of this presentation.

The difficulties in crossing borders, on the other hand, reveal a series of problems that involve

numerous entities directly (government authorities responsible for controlling border

crossings, professionals acting as intermediaries between the authorities and the transport

operators, transport operators and drivers etc.). They are due both to the problems of facilities

at border crossing points (infrastructures) and administrative problems (border crossing

procedures).

Customs and transit infrastructure and procedures

The increase in commercial exchanges between different customs-control territories has

highlighted the need to have the necessary equipment and procedures to take care of, check

and perform all the operations necessary for the customs clearance of road vehicles and their

freight, as well as the private vehicles and busses carrying passengers.

Although progress has been made over the last few years, particularly within the framework

of the PHARE programme, several border crossing points have still not been equipped with

17


18/22

adequate infrastructures to handle the numerous freight and tourist transport vehicles under

satisfactory conditions of traffic fluidity and safety. During peak traffic months, the

bottlenecks can cause delays of several hours, if not several days and this is incompatible with

the seamless travel, the provision of interoperability and interconnectivity. In addition, the

border customs office infrastructures are often too small in size.

We can distinguish the border customs deficiencies into ones related to (i) infrastructure and

(ii) operations. As for the infrastructure (although PHARE has a specific programme

addressing the infrastructure upgrading at border crossings and equipment acquisition for

customs), most of the border crossings lack the necessary access roads, shelters, control

equipment, buildings and office space. Parking areas are often cramped and do not guarantee

adequate surveillance of the transported freight. This is worsened by the fact that border

crossings have become places, where informal traders offer products and services to the

people passing through (tourists, lorry drivers, machine drivers, coach passengers, etc.), not to

mention the employees of forwarding agencies and the civil servants employed by the various

government bodies present at the border (customs, police, border guards, veterinary

inspectors, etc.). In addition, the customs services do not have enough room to check either

the transported freight or the different compartments and cabin of the vehicles under

inspection, so that the procedures are executed with satisfactory conditions.

As it concerns the border crossing operations, and in particular customs procedures, some of

the difficulties arisen are:

Disparities in the processing of imports and exports.

Inadequacy of services offered by customs brokers.

Unclear customs and fiscal procedures, which often change.

Absence of certain customs clearance operations at the border.

Only partial computerisation of customs clearance procedures.

Visa procedures, only for the purposes of collecting money. It has nothing to do with the

real objective of the visa, to check the person entering the country.

It is frequently found that the time taken to accomplish import formalities are shorter than

those for export and transit operations are. It can be concluded that the customs authorities

focus their attention on imported freight, which is subject to duties and taxes and therefore

18


19/22

contributes significantly towards tax revenues. Export and transiting freight is only processed

once the imported freight has been examined. This distortion is naturally detrimental to the

national economy, even if it is not accompanied by direct increases in costs.

Furthermore, there are numerous customs brokers in the non-EU countries, undoubtedly too

many. Their level of competence is average and their presence at the border or the internal

customs offices is sporadic, to say the least, creating additional problems.

Technical Standards

The construction and operation of the TENs in Eastern Europe needs common standards for

all transport infrastructure developments in Eastern Europe. The standards must be the same

or compatible with the ones in place by the EU member-states. This will safeguard the

interoperability, interconnectivity, safety and environmental protection in the network. TINA

reports have highlighted the difficulty in establishing common strategic technical standards

for the TINA network. Without ignoring the fact that legislation exists (mainly at national

level related to very detailed technical standards), this is not made exclusively for the TINA

network, taking into account its peculiarities and the equilibrium between what it is desirable

and what it is feasible (from budgetary point). Consequently, specific strategic technical

standards (compulsory and recommended practice) for the TENs developments in Eastern

Europe are needed, that will ensure all the above, incorporating best practices at national or

international level. A good example for such approach is the Standards and Recommended

Practices developed by the UN for the Trans-European North South Motorway (TEM) in the

early 80s.

Conclusions

The consideration of the driving forces of transport demand in Eastern Europe, as well as the

different levels of economic development and degree of harmonisation with the acquis

communautaires, create obstacles for the expansion of TEN in Eastern Europe. The large

heterogeneity and uncertainty of national contexts in Eastern Europe does not allow any

linear forecasts and scenarios for the future of TENs.

19


20/22

An in-depth analysis of the wider Eastern European space leads to three distinct concentric

circles. The first circle includes Poland, Hungary, Czech republic and Slovenia, Slovakia and

the Baltic States. The second circle includes Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, FYROM, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, and ex-Yugoslavia (with particularities). The third circle includes the CIS

countries.

The first circle presents a clear economic orientation towards the Western part of Europe.

National policy objectives within this zone are similar. The socio-economic environment

presents a relative stability and the macro-economic indicators reveal a continuous growth

process and conversion to EU standards. Many relevant transport projects are in progress in

these countries, with the support of the European Commission. The TEN developments in

these regions are expected to be implemented at a short or medium time horizon, without

significant conflicts and barriers in the definition of respective routes and alignments.

The second circle presents high uncertainty at the socio-economic level. National policy

objectives are not always clear and several horizontal conflicts arise, even if the general

orientation remains similar. Regional disparities increase internal conflicts. A part of them

directly concerns the route definition for the Pan-European corridors, as they are perceived as

a strategic component. The recent events (war in Yugoslavia) accentuate uncertainty, not only

in Yugoslavia but also in the neighbouring countries. Any scenario for the future development

of TEN in this region will depend on the strategic policy objectives at both local and

global level, which will not be formed before the end of the war and the establishment of a

geopolitical stability. The new Euroregions, which will derive from the transitive or

turbulent period of reconstruction, will determine a long-term implementation (and possibly

redesign) process of TEN in this zone.

The third circle presents also uncertainty. The countries included are in an early stage of

transition, but without clear policy objectives towards the EU. Certain trends to a west

orientation might be re-examined. The development of intra-region trade, in the frame of

globalisation, might reduce the dependencies from the west and create new development

models. The future and configuration of expansion of TEN will depend on the strategic

options of these countries.

20


21/22

Consequently, the expansion of TENs following the planning procedures adopted by the

European Union is visible in the countries of the first circle only. However, the re-

configuration of the previous dense, homogeneous but introvert transport system within

COMECON and its re-orientation on the axis west east creates a number of technical and

operational constraints. Regulatory barriers, custom clearance and transit procedures need

improvement and harmonisation with the ones followed in EU, in order to facilitate the

functional integration and promote interoperability.

Finally, the development of the TENs will depend on the ability of the countries concerned to

raise the necessary funds for their implementation. National governments have not all the

necessary funds to cover all transport infrastructure needs. For this reason the European

Union has developed several planning and financing tools and Programmes for the TEN

development in Eastern Europe. However, even these instruments will not be enough. Hence,

the realisation of the TENs will depend on loans granted by the financial institutions (EIB,

EBRD, World Bank) and the private banks, depending on the lending ability of the country.

In addition some parts of the TENs could involve private participation through Private Public

Partnership (PPP) schemes. The objectives of these initiatives will be probably achieved in

the first zone of expansion. Also, they will be affected by the time horizon for implementation

of next steps of the expansion of the European Union, according to the policies for

enlargement.

In any case the expansion of the TENS to Eastern Europe is a non-reversible process. The

only uncertainty lies on the time frame for the im0plementation

References

[1] TENASSESS (1996-1999), Research project of the IVth Framework Programme DG

VII, several reports (authors ICCR et al.)

[2] Cf. Briefing no. 21 produced by the Task Force on Enlargement of the EU and Economic

and Social Cohesion.

21


22/22

[3] Cf. Briefing no. 19 produced by the Task Force on Budgetary aspects of enlargement of

the EU, as well as Briefing no. 16 on Controlling and Protecting EU finances with a view

to enlargement.

[4] COM (97) 2001 to 2010 final of 15.07.1997. Cf. Briefings nos. 1 to 14, 28 and 32

produced by the Task Force on the different countries.

[5] http//www.europa.eu.int/comm.dg1a/enlarge/index.htm

[6] CODE-TEN (1999), Comparison Case Studies, Deliverable 3 (Authors: ICCR et al)

[7] CODE-TEN (1999), Scenarios and Infrastructure Development, Deliverable 4 (Authors:

INRETS)

[8] POSSUM (1998), Images of Future Transport in Europe, Deliverable 2, London

University College London.

[9] TINA (1998), Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment Central and Eastern Europe;

Progress Report, Vienna, TINA / DG I / PHARE

The Future of Trans-European Corridor Developments in Eastern Europe

Documents

Transcript of The Future of Trans-European Corridor Developments in Eastern Europe