This report provides an assessment of the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) following the TEN-T guidelines set out in Decision 1692/96/EC. These guidelines constitute a general reference framework for the implementation of the network and identify projects of common interest. The transport modes covered by the guidelines are: road, rail and inland waterway networks, motorways of the sea, seaports and inland waterway ports, airports and other interconnection points between modal networks, as well as traffic management and navigation systems.

This report covers a two-year period, from 2004 to the end of 2005. The investment data it contains refer to the EU-15, the EU-25 as of 1 May 2004 and the EU-27 as from 1 January 2007. The funds allocated to TEN-T implementation in 2004 and 2005 were analysed for this report, by project and by Member State , with a special focus on priority projects.

The total investment in the TEN-T network in the EU-27 over the two-year period 2004 –2005 was approximately EUR 101.74 billion. A general assessment of the sources of TEN-T investment during 2004–2005 shows that national public funding contributed about 76.9%, by far the largest part, and together with loans from EIB accounted for more than 91%. In terms of modes, investment in the 2004 – 2005 period focused on railways (57%), followed

by roads (27%), airports (9%), ports (5%) and inland waterways (2%).

The report concludes that the total investment in the TEN-T network in the EU-27 over the two-year period 2004‑2005 shows an increase in average annual investment in the TEN-T network compared with the previous period 2000‑2003, with average spending already reaching about EUR 51 billion, a figure significantly higher than in previous years.

Moreover, average total investment as a percentage of GDP in the EU-27 increased from 0.43% in 2002–03 to 0.47% in 2004–05 . One of the reasons is certainly the increase in grants due to the fact that the 10 new Member States were eligible for this funding from 1 May 2004.

However, a more detailed analysis of the investment shows that in some countries, especially in the EU-15 (Denmark, France, Germany), the total investment as a percentage of GDP was well below the EU average.

Concerning financing, it can be concluded that national public funding still contributed by far the largest part of the investment in the TEN-T network. In order to concentrate the scarce Community funds and to facilitate the coordinated implementation of certain projects, in particular cross-border projects, the Commission has designated ‘European Coordinators’, in agreement with the Member States concerned and after having consulted the European Parliament. The European Coordinators act in the name of and on behalf of the Commission and should speed up the implementation of the projects of common interest.

The completion of the 30 priority projects for international traffic by 2020 is in general on track . With an annual investment volume of about EUR 50 billion, transport infrastructure can be improved significantly. Nevertheless, the elimination of cross-border bottlenecks in particular is still lagging behind and needs to be improved.

This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the report from the Commission on the implementation of the Trans-European Transport Network Guidelines 2004-2005 pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC.

Part 1 concerns the implementation in general . In particular, it considers the main developments on the TEN-T modal networks (i.e. road, rail, inland waterways, ports, airports and combined transport).

Part 2 looks at the horizontal issues of interoperability, research and development, and environmental protection.

In part 3 there is a general assessment of the development of the TEN-T during the period in question and a more detailed section on the TEN-T priority projects .

Part 4 on Community funding provides an overview of the financing of TEN-T with particular reference to financial support from the EU during the reference period.

This report from the Commission concerns the implementation of the Trans-European transport network guidelines (2002-2003). It provides an assessment of the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) following the TEN-T guidelines set out in Decision 1692/96/EC.

The investment data contained in the report refer to the “old” and “new” Member States and to Bulgaria and Romania and a partial distinction is made between EU-15, EU-10 and EU-2 and EU-27 (all three groups of States).

The report concludes that the total investment in the TEN-T network in the EU-27 over the two year period 2002 –2003 showed that the average annual investments on the TEN-T network compared with 2000 and 2001 increased.

However, as these investments are calculated in constant prices and after discussions with representatives of the Member States, it is clear that the estimated investment in the TEN-T network can be misleading. Italy, for example, spent more than 22 billion EUR on TEN-T due to a very intensive investment period in the years 2002 and 2003. The average annual investment in these two years was almost double compared with the six previous years; additionally this EUR 22 billion represents more than 25% of the total investments in the EU- 27. Taking this fact and when analysing the investments in more detail, it is apparent that the total investments per country in comparison with GDP development – especially in the EU-15 - decreased; in Denmark for example only 0.09% of the GDP was spent for TEN-T, while in Slovenia about 1.46% of the GDP was committed for the development of the TEN-T network.

Concerning financing, it can be concluded that national public funding still contributed by far the largest part of the investments in the TEN-T network. In order to optimise the scarce Community funds and to facilitate the coordinated implementation of certain projects, in particular cross-border projects, the Commission designated, in agreement with the Member States concerned, and after having consulted the European Parliament "European Coordinators". The European Coordinator acts in the name of and on behalf of the Commission and should work to speed up the implementation of the projects of common interest.

The completion of the 30 priority projects for international traffic by 2020 in general, is on track. Thus the annual investment volume in the years 2002 and 2003 was about EUR 40 billion. The elimination of bottlenecks especially on cross-border sections is still lagging behind and needs to be improved.

Mr PIECYK (PSE, D) emphasised the importance of trans-European networks both for economic and social cohesion and in the context of the White Paper on growth and employment. Underlining the close links between transport and the environment, the rapporteur highlighted the environmental benefits that could result from a greater investment in rail transport and the development of navigable waterways. Although he deplored the lack of cooperation shown by the Council under the codecision process, Mr Piecyk thought that it was better to be optimistic and to implement the trans-European transport network, while in future following the theories being advocated by Parliament. In criticising the joint project, Mr KAKLAMANIS (RDE, GR), Mrs ERIKSSON (GUE/NGL, S) and Mrs VAN DIJK (Greens, NL) declared that their groups were opposed to the compromise, for different reasons. Commissioner Kinnock said that the networks were important for employment, growth, competitiveness, and economic and social cohesion in the European Union. He also referred to Article129d, which specified that agreement had to be obtained from a Member State before trans-European networks could be implemented in its territory. In referring to the most important results of the conciliation procedure the Commissioner mentioned the inclusion of environmental aspects and the Council’s acceptance of 18 amendments to projects that had been adopted by Parliament at second reading. As regards ports, Mr Kinnock said that the Commission wanted to present a specific report aimed at identifying those that were eligible. Finally, the Commissioner pointed out that the conciliation process had resulted in a more realistic outcome on an economic and social level, while at the same time favouring the outlying regions and respecting environmental requirements.

Following the agreement on the joint text that was reached by the Conciliation Committee on 17 June 1996, the Council approved the Decision on Community guidelines by written procedure on 15 July. Given that this was achieved through the codecision procedure and that Parliament, for its part, had also confirmed the joint text at its plenary sitting of 17 July 1996, the decision was definitively adopted.

The Council was in favour of initiating the conciliation procedure as quickly as possible and was anxious to reach an agreement with Parliament on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. The general disposition was that a compromise should be reached with Parliament on the arrangements required for environmental protection. The Council called on the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue its work and to focus especially on those questions that were still open.

The rapporteur, Mr PIECYK (PSE, D), considered that the Council’s common position did not demonstrate a political will to transpose the Maastricht objectives. He emphasised that the trans-European transport networks contributed to the economic and social cohesion of the Union. Parliament’s position at first reading had been to plan the transport network in such a way as to ensure that access to the network respected the environment. In his view, Parliament should retain in full the position it had adopted at first reading as the Council had not changed its position. The Commissioner, Mr KINNOCK, pointed out that the financial regulation adopted contained transitional provisions that allowed appropriations to be allocated until the end of the year. For the following year Parliament would have to adopt the broad lines under the codecision procedure, which would require a rapid agreement between Parliament and the Council in order to avoid any harmful repercussions. He stated that of the 140 amendments tabled he could adopt 47 in full or in part in addition to a further 13, the substance of which had been incorporated in the Commission’s amended proposal of 19 June. Compared with Parliament’s first reading, the Commission had changed its mind on 7 amendments, which were taken over. Of the amendments that were rejected, Mr Kinnock referred to Amendments Nos 32, 35, 42, 43 and 52, which added routes of local importance or duplicated those that were already included. He rejected Amendments Nos 60, 61, 67, 69, 71 and 72 on high-speed trains and Amendments Nos 114 and 118 on combined transport as these projects were either not economically viable or could be financed by the states or rail companies. The Commissioner did support the amendments tabled by Parliament at first reading on the environment. As regards Annex 3, the Commission agreed with Parliament that the projects the Council had unanimously excluded from the list in question should provide a basis for the objectives in the short and medium term. Finally, the Commissioner pointed out that although the broad lines related to the territory of a Member State, they required, in accordance with the Treaty, the authorisation of the state concerned.

Noting that the proposal sought to establish a communications system that guaranteed ‘sustainable mobility’, the rapporteur highlighted the concept of ecologically acceptable transport and cited trains and the inland waterway network as examples. In light of this criterion the Commission proposal was not satisfactory as it provided for 126 road links but only 11 projects for rail, 57 for combined transport and 26 for inland waterway networks. Mr PIECYK therefore proposed that 40% of the investments should go to rail, 25% to roads, 15% to combined transport and 20% to inland waterways. The rapporteur also regretted that Parliament had not been involved in the drafting of the proposals by the Christophersen Group, which had been damaging because they raised false expectations among the public in the Member States. Parliament therefore asked that it be involved at the project development stage. The Commission responsible for transport, Mr KINNOCK, stated that the Commission could only take over around 100 of the 238 amendments tabled, and it had reservations about another 20 of them. He added that he had prepared a text summarising once again the Commission’s position on this matter.

Pending Parliament’s opinion under the co­decision procedure, the Council held a policy debate on the proposal for a decision on the Community guidelines for the development of the trans­-European transport network. The proposal concerns all forms of transport infrastructure - land, sea and air - in a context of intermodal integration. The proposed guidelines are intended to replace the three ‘modal’ Decisions adopted by the Council on 29 October 1993 (road, inland ­waterway and combined­ transport networks). They also include railways, ports and airports, and information and management systems for the whole network. After the debate, during which progress was made on some aspects of the proposed Decision, the Council instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to expedite the discussions, in light of the opinion of the European Parliament, so that a common position could be established as soon as possible. Referring to the conclusions of the Essen European Council, and independently of the proposed Decision, the Council: - stressed the importance it attached to the coherent and rapid development of the trans­-European transport network, and in particular the implementation of the 14 priority projects approved by the European Council; - drew attention to the importance of the systems of transport management, especially in the field of air transport.