Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Pan-European transport conference and social dialogue - from Crete to Helsinki`

(96/C 204/23)

On 24 February 1994, the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an Opinion on the 'Follow-up to the second pan-European transport conference in Crete`.

On 21 November 1995, the Committee Bureau decided to change the title of the Opinion to 'The pan-European transport conference and social dialogue - from Crete to Helsinki`.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 10 April 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Eulen.

At its 335th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 April 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 91 votes to six with nine abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. Following an initiative by the European Parliament and the Commission supported by a number of other institutions and organizations, especially the Dutch Council Presidency of the time, the first pan-European transport conference was held in Prague in October 1991. This was followed by a second conference held on the island of Crete in March 1994.

1.2. During the run-up to the second pan-European transport conference in 1993, the Committee decided to make its own contribution to this important initiative for pan-European cooperation on transport. The resulting Own-initiative Opinion on the second pan-European transport conference () was unanimously adopted at the October 1993 Plenary Session. The Rapporteur was Mr Bleser.

1.3. The Opinion was based on a principle which also lay at the heart of the pan-European transport conference initiative: namely, that of social, political and economic dialogue involving all interested parties with a view to laying a solid foundation for a common, pan-European transport policy ().

1.4. The Own-initiative Opinion on the second pan-European transport conference concentrated on two main themes. The first was an analysis of the current situation with regard to transport and transport policy in Central and Eastern Europe. The second focused on how these problems should be dealt with and how transport policy might be brought into line with that of the EU, while taking account of existing differences within the EU.

1.5. In a separate comprehensive section () the Opinion looked into the establishment of consultative machinery as part of pan-European cooperation on transport. Apart from this being consistent with the Committee's modus operandi and conception of its own role, the intention was also that the machinery of social consultation should be used constructively to accelerate the building of democratic structures, the organization of interest groups and the establishment of social dialogue in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) themselves.

1.6. The Committee was explicitly in favour of the EU Member States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe engaging in a dialogue as equal partners. This is further borne out by numerous other Committee Opinions and initiatives, including those in areas other than transport.

1.7. The present Own-initiative Opinion builds on the work already done and on the results of the second pan-European transport conference. It is intended to serve as a basis for preparations for the third conference to be held in Finland in 1997.

2. The significance of the second pan-European transport conference in Crete

2.1. The second pan-European transport conference, from 14 to 16 March 1994, was a great success. Nearly 700 participants from 42 European countries attended, including government and parliamentary representatives, members of the EU institutions and many representatives from interest groups. It is worth highlighting that Community funding allowed a number of representatives from employers' associations and transport unions in Central and Eastern Europe to attend.

2.2. The issues discussed were ambitious and wide-ranging. Three working groups met in parallel to discuss the following topics: transport and market economy; transport infrastructure and financing; horizon 2000 (combined transport, new technologies, safety and environmental protection).

2.3. The debate was further enriched by the results of a series of regional conferences held on issues specific to certain regions or sectors during the run-up to the Crete conference.

2.4. Thirteen people from the ESC attended the conference. Three individual ESC members presented written submissions to various working groups. Eike Eulen, the then President of the Section for Transport and Communications, also reported on the work of one of the working groups at the closing session. The Committee's contributions have been collated in a single document (CES 816/94).

2.5. At the end of the conference, participants issued a joint declaration on the principles, goals and measures for inclusion in a future pan-European transport policy. Only the environmental organizations present expressly abstained from voting in favour of the declaration.

2.6. The Crete declaration has no binding force, but in as much as it is very much a self-commitment, it forms the basis for pan-European cooperation on transport in the coming years.

2.7. In May 1994 the European Parliament put together a thirty-or-so-page summary record of the Crete conference. The official conference documentation, concentrating primarily on the opening and closing sessions, will be published soon.

3. Developments in the wake of the Crete conference

3.1. Numerous meetings of a specially appointed steering committee () were held to prepare for the Crete conference and draft a possible final declaration. The ESC was also able to take part in the steering committee's work and to submit suggestions.

3.2. The steering committee's work continued after the conference. It provides a constructive and viable basis for support, preparatory and coordinating measures in connection with the pan-European transport conferences.

3.3. In the follow-up to the 1991 Prague conference, and even more so since the Crete conference, there have been a large number of transport-related actions which are pan-European in scope while relating to specific regions or sectors. The Crete declaration is increasingly taken as a point of departure, or at least as a common point of reference, for cooperation on transport.

3.4. In preparation for the third pan-European transport conference a selection has been made from among these actions to determine which conferences should be specifically regarded as preparatory regional conferences. The following list is based on the latest information:

>TABLE>

3.5. The third pan-European transport conference is scheduled to be held from 23 to 25 June 1997 in Helsinki, Finland.

3.6. It was at the Crete conference that the idea of closer cooperation in the Mediterranean area was first mooted. The Euro-Mediterranean conference held in Barcelona in November 1995 was of great importance in this connection. Political, economic and cultural rapprochement will promote political stability in the region and lay the foundation for a future free-trade area. The Committee has issued two Opinions on the subject this year ().

The importance of this new partnership for pan-European cooperation in the field of transport is undisputed, but concrete results are still lacking and thus can only be assessed at a later date. In the aforementioned Opinions the Committee highlighted the need to involve the economic and social partners significantly in the establishment of closer cooperation. This applies equally to cooperation in the field of transport.

3.7. Discussions are currently in progress concerning the main themes for the Helsinki Conference and the conference organization. At present, it would seem that the use of telematics in trans-European networks (TEN) will be the focal point. The Conference will also review progress made in implementing the Crete declaration and raise environmental protection and traffic safety issues as well as social aspects. The discussions have not yet been completed.

3.8. The European Parliament will submit an interim report in spring 1996 on the follow-up to Crete and the preparations for Helsinki.

4. Implementation of the Crete declaration

4.1. The Crete declaration gives a round-up in Part A of transport policy successes since the 1991 Prague conference.

4.2. Building on these, it lays down principles for a common transport policy (Part B).

4.2.1. The transport sector should be organized according to the principles of the social market economy and free competition. Transport markets should be progressively opened up on a reciprocal basis in line with progress in the harmonization of competition conditions.

4.2.2. An integrated transport policy should promote intermodal transport and especially public transport, with due regard to public service obligations.

4.2.3. Legal and administrative regulations should be harmonized, particularly with regard to the compatibility of technical systems and fiscal measures and the setting of minimum standards in social, environmental and energy policy and in transport safety.

4.2.4. Finally, the transport infrastructure planning of Europe-wide links should be coordinated.

4.3. These principles are followed by a series of individual measures (Part C), which are intended to determine the common approach in the years ahead. Only the most significant of these measures are mentioned here:

- social market economy and fair competition (1);

- liberalization of cross-border transport (1.4);

- creation of consultative machinery, promotion of social dialogue (1.5);

- adaptation of social regulations, creation of acceptable working conditions (2.3);

- charging infrastructure costs and, in future, external costs to users (2.4);

- environmental and safety standards guaranteeing the highest level of pan-European protection (2.5);

- improvement of border crossings (3);

- setting priorities for infrastructure corridors and coordination of planning and implementation (4.1 and 4.2);

- infrastructure funding with the help of private capital (4.4 and 4.5);

- collection and exchange of statistical information (6 and 7).

4.4. When reviewing implementation of the Crete declaration over the last year and a half, what stands out are the efforts to develop and improve border crossings and to develop infrastructure along selected 'corridors`. These have been defined jointly by the UN-ECE, the CEMT and the Commission as extensions of the trans-European networks (TEN).

4.4.1. Both the Commission and the Member States concerned have taken a number of steps to improve border crossings. In 1994, for example, the Phare programme provided ECU 58,75 million for the development of German-Polish border crossings. In the same year, about ECU 100 million was made available for the elimination of transit bottlenecks and improvement of border crossings in the Balkans, action which was urgently needed as a result of the war in ex-Yugoslavia.

It is certainly not yet possible to claim that all problems, especially the long border delays, have been solved. Nor are solutions likely to be found in the next few years given current conditions and the enormous increase in cross-border traffic.

The Commission has assessed the improvements made at border crossings in an independent report (Commission Decision of 10 November 1995), which points out that investment in infrastructure is not sufficient in itself to remove bottlenecks at border crossings. The major requirement is for more efficient handling, which can be achieved, inter alia, by providing the relevant training for staff. The Commission's aid programme for the coming years takes account of this.

4.4.2. The Commission, the CEMT and the UN-ECE reached agreement on nine priority traffic corridors at the Crete Conference (). These are intended to function as extensions of the trans-European networks (TEN).

The greatest progress has been made in cooperation on the development of the Berlin-Warsaw-Minsk-Moscow road and railway corridor. On 23 January 1995, the transport ministers of the countries concerned signed a memorandum of understanding to reaffirm their cooperation and facilitate funding. The agreement also provides for a more comprehensive exchange of information on operational, legal, economic and social issues. Cooperation along the Helsinki-St. Petersburg-Minsk-Kiev and Trieste-Budapest-Lvov-Kiev corridors is taking a similar course.

Funding of the infrastructure costs for many sections of these corridors has still not been settled and it is not yet clear whether there has been any success in raising private capital.

4.5. The Crete declaration is guided by the criteria and rules and regulations applicable within the EU. To this extent, the structured dialogue between the EU and the associated CEECs provides an excellent platform for implementing the declaration.

4.5.1. The first meeting of transport ministers from the EU and the associated CEECs was held on 28 September 1995. The topics discussed included the approximation of legislation and market integration; the development and funding of infrastructure; and the establishment of integrated national transport systems. Whilst good progress was made with regard to the approximation of legislation and the establishment of free market conditions, the proposals concerning an integrated transport system remained non-committal. Efforts will be made to remedy this situation in future by involving the associated countries more in Community action.

4.6. It is still difficult to gauge the implementation of the Crete declaration in terms of concrete results.

4.6.1. What is certain is that the declaration serves as a platform for discussion and a unifying factor at various levels: as a wide variety of regional conferences and congresses; within the framework of the proceedings of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC); as part of the European Parliament's cooperation with Central and Eastern European MPs responsible for transport matters; within the framework of the Phare and Tacis aid programmes; in connection with the negotiations for implementing the EU's association agreements with individual Central and Eastern European countries; and in the context of many other bilateral contacts.

4.6.2. It is not yet possible to make a satisfactory overall assessment of the results and progress achieved to date.

5. Further expectations with regard to the implementation of the Crete declaration in the run-up to the Helsinki Conference

5.1. The available results reveal a number of definite achievements (see points 4.4, 4.5). Success in attaining other objectives of the Crete declaration is, however, less apparent. The Committee would draw attention to some of the more important of these.

5.2. Point C.1 of the declaration obliges countries to develop their transport systems 'in accordance with the principles of the social market economy, and free and fair competition within a general framework of laws to correct market failures to protect the public interest`. Despite the fact that the EU and its Member States, too, have not always been successful in finding the right balance between market forces and state provision of basic services in the transport sector, the CEECs' initial response to the obligation to create a market economy has apparently been to privatize state transport enterprises. The legal framework governing market organization, social protection and the preservation of services in the public interest appears - no doubt because of practical constraints - to have been somewhat neglected. A number of examples illustrate this discrepancy.

5.2.1. In Hungary, the State railway, MAV, was to be rehabilitated by closing down part of the network, since the decline in goods traffic made it impossible for MAV to offset its losses from the passenger transport sector. Main lines would have been kept open but many branch lines serving more remote areas would have been closed. The local populations reacted angrily because, in the 1980s, similar action by the Communist government had resulted in the 'restructuring` of both the rail network and the pattern of human settlements in Hungary with the virtual depopulation of many smaller villages.

5.2.2. Following its privatization and liberalization over a period of several years the Polish road freight transport sector is now extremely imbalanced. There are estimated to be about 60 000 Polish road hauliers, of whom some 6 000 have a licence to operate abroad, i.e. access to this part of the market is regulated. Access to the national market has so far been totally unrestricted. A retrospective attempt is now being made to introduce certain minimum standards with regard to entrepreneurial activity and social conditions in the sector.

5.2.3. The Russian road freight transport sector shows a similar development. At the end of 1993, there were half a million haulage companies, of which 1 500 were 'old` and 300 000 newly established (the remainder being own-account company services). So far, the entire sector remains virtually unregulated (market access, tariffs, technical inspection, crew working conditions). Experts believe that it will take 8 to 10 years to introduce this legislation.

5.2.4. Road haulage is the most highly privatized and deregulated transport sector in the CEECs. Whilst other modes will not adopt exactly the same approach, there is a danger that deregulation may take a similar path. The Committee therefore calls on the EU and CEECs to act jointly to ensure that the common policy henceforth gives far greater emphasis to the legal framework governing fair competition and social obligations in the context of free market principles. This is the only way to counteract the reemergence of protectionism in the CEECs.

5.3. Point C 14 calls for the progressive liberalization of market access in accordance with progress made in harmonizing competitive conditions. The only known linkage between market liberalization and harmonized standards is to be found in bilateral road-freight transport agreements, where higher quotas have been linked to the use of environmentally-friendly heavy goods vehicles. More transparency may be achieved by giving the EU a brief to negotiate with the CEECs. At all events, the aim should be to ensure that international standards at least are observed, that observance of the ban on cabotage receives sufficient attention and that the adverse social consequences resulting from the enormous wage differentials are minimized by opening up the market in a prudent and gradual manner.

5.4. The purpose of point C 2.3 of the Crete declaration is vague. It is difficult to see what adjusting social provisions in the transport sector means since, strictly speaking, 'social provisions` apply only to international road transport. The appendage 'where necessary` increases the obscurity. The success achieved in implementing this point is equally uncertain.

5.4.1. The Committee does not deny that there are a number of EU/CEEC cooperation projects which are beneficial to transport workers. The general wording is also understandable, bearing in mind that allowance must be made for the different situations facing different modes and national practices. Even so, the half-hearted manner of expression does not even do justice to the feeble attempts to tackle this question within the framework of pan-European transport cooperation.

5.4.2. If this point in the declaration is to be taken seriously, a joint review should be undertaken and a concrete strategy for each individual mode drawn up. This strategy would have to be realistic, but it would at least ensure that a precise common target for standardizing and improving working conditions had been identified.

5.5. Passing on infrastructure costs and external costs to the individual modes (point C 2.4) is an extremely difficult task which will cost even the EU some time and effort. A realistic basis will not be created in the CEECs until the additional costs can be reflected in transport prices. Despite an uneven playing-field, however, a common approach is possible and advisable. The CEECs should therefore be closely involved in EU discussions of this matter. The alarming shift in favour of road transport in the modal split also highlights the need for CEEC action. Passing on external costs in a fair manner to all transport modes is an essential requirement if each individual mode is to be utilized to optimum effect within an integrated system.

5.6. Point C 2.5 of the declaration calls for the progressive adjustment of environmental and traffic safety standards to the highest level of protection in Europe. By analogy with the comments on point C 2.3 a joint concrete strategy should be evolved in this connection. Whilst it is understandable that the Crete declaration could do little more than define this general objective, the Helsinki conference should lead to a clearer outlook for sustainable transport development.

With a view to achieving this goal, particular attention should be paid to the following aspects: protection of the environment; consumer protection; traffic safety; and the funding of traffic infrastructure projects. Any practical experience available in these areas - and in particular any examples of successful solutions - should be raised and utilized in the consultation process. In this debate it is essential to avoid giving the impression either that solutions can be found in the EU to all future transport problems or that no mistakes have been made in the field of transport policy in Western Europe. We should rather jointly learn from the mistakes which have been made and seek to work together to find solutions to tomorrow's challenges.

5.7. Points C 6 and C 7 are two relatively uncontroversial parts of the Crete declaration dealing with the exchange and joint collection of statistical information and collaboration on policy analysis. The Committee is unable to judge the progress made in these areas to date. The collection and analysis of adequate data on transport trends in general and the situation of individual modes in particular is vital for an integrated pan-European transport policy and the Helsinki conference should stress this specific point.

5.8. One area of special significance for the Committee is the possibility of establishing consultative machinery (point C 1.5). A separate section (section 7) is therefore devoted to this point.

6. Transparency in the development of a pan-European transport policy. The existing system of agreements and cooperation

6.1. Pan-European transport policy has long ceased to be merely part of the rapprochement between East and West. Instead, it is split up into a variety of agreements and cooperation ties. This will inevitably lead to a multi-speed rapprochement process which will in turn increase the need for transparency, since otherwise it will be difficult to appraise and frame a transport policy for the whole of Europe.

6.2. The greatest pressure for the adjustment of standards and policy to EU practice is likely to come from the Europe Agreements and other association agreements. Officially, Europe Agreements have so far been concluded with eleven CEECs: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, the three Baltic States, Slovenia and Albania. The Polish and Hungarian agreements entered into force in 1994 followed by those with the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria and Romania in the spring of 1995. Although the other agreements are still pending, the countries in question are already parties to the dialogue.

6.2.1. In terms of transport policy, maritime transport is the only area of international transport to be liberalized by these agreements. Further transport agreements are to be negotiated separately. These will essentially embody the EU's provisions and no restrictive measures are to be introduced to alter the status quo pending their conclusion. Two further articles in the agreements fix priorities for cooperation in the transport sector. Their basic aim is to modernize and restructure transport and to introduce a legal framework and operational environment based on the EU model.

The objectives are to: 'restructure and modernize transport, improve circulation of passengers and goods and the access to the transport market by removing administrative, technical and other obstacles; facilitate Community transit ..., achieve operating standards comparable to those in the Community`.

Cooperation is to include the following: 'economic, legal and technical training programmes, the provision of technical assistance and advice, and the exchange of information, and the provision of means to develop infrastructure ...`.

Priority areas of cooperation are: 'the construction and modernization of road transport, including the gradual easing of transit conditions; the management of railways and airports, including cooperation between the appropriate national authorities; the modernization, on major routes of common interest and trans-European links, of road, inland waterway, railway, port and airport infrastructure; land-use planning including construction and urban planning; the promotion of road-rail transport containerization, transhipment and the construction of terminals; the replacement of transport technical equipment in order to meet Community standards; the promotion of joint technological and research programmes (...); the development of legislative measures and the implementation of policies in all areas of transportation, compatible with the transport policies applicable in the Community`.

Quotes from the agreement with the Slovak Republic.

6.2.2. In an extensive addendum to its White Paper on preparing the associated CEECs for integration into the internal market, the Commission presents a plan for gradually bringing these countries' transport policies and systems closer to those of the EU. It suggests giving priority to certain Community regulations. The plan covers individual modes and contains no all-embracing transport-policy proposals.

6.2.3. In the road-transport sector provision has been made for an extensive regulatory package covering access to the profession and the market, technical specifications and social legislation and its monitoring prior to the lifting of all restrictions on cross-frontier traffic and cabotage in stage III. However, this is not linked to a specific date or any other condition - not even in connection with the quotas laid down in bilateral agreements.

6.2.4. In rail transport, top priority is given to the commercial independence of the railways (Directive 91/440/EEC).

6.2.5. In the field of inland shipping, legislation governing access to the profession will be transposed in stage I and the revised Directive on technical specifications for inland shipping will be transposed in stage II.

6.2.6. In maritime transport, the transposition of Regulation No 4055/86 on the freedom to provide services will be given priority. All important Directives on improving safety at sea will also gradually be transposed.

6.2.7. In the air-transport sector, the requirement that gradual liberalization should be conditional on prior harmonization is clearer than in any other sector. These harmonization requirements include the establishment of an independent air traffic authority and a series of other rules on technical and economic acceptability and general safety, slot allocation and reservation systems.

6.3. A further batch of association agreements (which are not the same as the Europe Agreements mentioned above) is in the pipeline in the context of the new EU-Mediterranean partnership. Negotiations with Malta and Cyprus are planned for 1996/1997 and association agreements with Israel, Tunisia and Morocco have already been signed. Negotiations are currently underway with Algeria and Syria.

6.4. The EU has signed so-called partnership or association agreements with several other Eastern European countries. According to current information, agreements exist with Russia, Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova and the Ukraine.

6.4.1. The transport-related sections of these agreements are modelled on the Europe Agreements. They contain provisions on the liberalization of maritime transport and the freedom of establishment of shipping agencies. Separate transport agreements are planned. Cooperation in the field of transport policy is focused on modernization work and, in particular, on the 'formulation of a legal and institutional framework for the development and implementation of policy, including privatization of the transport sector` (quote from the Agreement with the Republic of Kazakhstan - unofficial translation).

6.5. There are also important instances of regional cooperation (mostly at transport minister level) which are modelled on the regional conferences.

6.5.1. Barents Sea region: Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia: first meeting of transport ministers held in Alta, Norway in September 1993.

6.5.2. Baltic Sea region: Belarus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovak Republic and Sweden; first meeting in March 1992 in Szczecin; second meeting in February 1994 in Kaliningrad; third meeting scheduled for April 1997 in Berlin.

6.5.3. Central European cooperation: a first transport conference of the 'hexagon` countries took place in May 1992. A further conference is planned for October 1996.

6.5.4. Black Sea region: an initial conference of the Heads of State and Government was held in June 1992 (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine). Regular ministerial meetings should follow. A slightly differently composed meeting was held in Constanza in October 1993 under the heading: 'South-East Europe transport conference`.

6.5.5. Mediterranean region: countries bordering on the Mediterranean, first transport conference in Triest in December 1993; Euro-Mediterranean conference in Barcelona in November 1995; follow-up conference on transport planned.

6.6. It is not possible to list the many bilateral transport agreements between individual countries here. Some, at least, are gradually being replaced by Europe Agreements once the EU is given a negotiating brief. So far, the Commission has been instructed to conduct negotiations on cross-frontier inland-waterway traffic between the CEECs and the EU. It has also been given a mandate to negotiate road haulage transit agreements with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria so as to facilitate transport between Greece and the EU, and agreements on occasional passenger transport services with nearly all the CEECs.

6.7. Transparency with regard to pan-European cooperation in transport primarily means collecting the available information and passing this on to all for whom it is essential for policymaking. These include economic and social partners, who must be adequately briefed if they are to participate in the process and accept responsibility. It also means creating a platform for fruitful dialogue.

6.7.1. In addition, the transparency objective makes it necessary to clarify the differences between each CEEC's contractual status and basic position and to identify features which can be brought under a common heading. To this end, it would make sense to examine policy areas individually.

6.7.2. Interested parties must enjoy easier access to information on regional conferences. Details of the objectives in question and any final documents should be circulated more widely and not restricted to the EU Member States.

6.7.3. Just as the multi-stage plan for implementing the association agreements described in point 6.2 provides an admirable account of the rapprochement strategy, it should be equally possible to identify and discuss concrete steps within the framework of other agreements.

6.7.4. Broadly speaking, the information policy on European cooperation in the transport sector must become much more pro-active. There must be greater participation in the formation of these relations. This goes for the existing Europe, association and partnership agreements and particularly for future transport agreements based on these. Smoothly flowing transport, especially at frontier crossing-points, is in everyone's interest and it can best be achieved on the basis of the broadest possible consensus. It is not too early to launch a more broadly-based discussion in the run-up to the Helsinki conference. In individual CEECs, in particular, the transmission of information to relevant social and economic interest groups must be seen as an important obligation.

7. Creation of consultative machinery to promote social dialogue on cooperation in pan-European transport policy

7.1. The ESC welcomed and supported the initiative to establish the pan-European transport conferences, not least because they provide a broader base for consensus and lasting cooperation by bringing together the various political, economic and social players in a discussion forum. The principle of consultation was included in the Crete declaration (point C 1.5) so as to involve economic and social interest groups more closely in the political debate.

7.2. The idea was not only to ensure systematic consultation of Western European socio-economic groupings - who already have a say via effective existing structures - but also to support the development of democratic structures and organized representation of social interest groups in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe currently undergoing reform.

7.3. The principles and measures set out in the Crete declaration variously touch upon questions of market economy structures, fair competition, labour relations, social conditions, consumer and environmental protection and transport safety.

7.4. The passage in the declaration about establishing consultative machinery in the field of pan-European transport policy is not only in the interests of the ESC, but was also included at the Committee's instigation. This Opinion therefore attaches special importance to the implementation of this option, i.e. the promotion of social dialogue.

7.5. Looking back at what has been achieved so far, it is possible to say that there have been no initiatives at a multilateral level. In the field of bilateral relations, reference can be made to one or two cases involving participation by trade associations. For example, representatives of the German transport industry accompanied the German transport minister on a visit to Moscow and St. Petersburg in October 1995 and representatives of Germany's inland waterways and inland ports were received by the Russian transport ministry in November 1995.

7.6. It is important to ask why the corresponding suggestions put forward at the Crete conference and in the Crete declaration have virtually been ignored to date.

7.6.1. This is primarily a question of 'competence`. Transport politicians from the Community take the existence of consultative machinery within the Community for granted and regard the involvement of organizations from the CEECs as a matter of subsidiarity.

7.6.2. The lack of structures in the CEECs makes it difficult to establish contacts when these are needed. It is even more difficult to find the right opposite number for general transport discussions in a multilateral context. Only a few European associations have so far been established and the only pan-sectoral European transport organization at present (and for the foreseeable future) is the trade-union umbrella organization.

7.6.3. Because of the host of problems to be solved and the many start-up difficulties, it is tempting to ignore other, possible divergent, interests for the time being. However, this is merely to defer and possibly aggravate the problems involved in the harmonized implementation of a common transport policy.

7.7. The relevant point C. 1.5 of the Crete declaration states that 'steps should be taken where necessary to establish consultative mechanisms for social dialogue within the context of pan-European cooperation on transport policy`.

7.7.1. A rigid structure is not vital. Various forms of dialogue are conceivable, as are procedures restricted in time or scope, as long as they are sufficiently binding. Different mechanisms co-exist even within the EU, for example the joint transport committees, the Economic and Social Committee and the economic and social councils to be found in many countries.

7.7.2. The Committee considers such consultative bodies to be necessary for the association-agreement negotiations. At the Committee's instigation, a joint declaration has been appended to a number of agreements allowing the Association Council to set up a consultative body. All association agreements can in principle make provision for the setting up of such a body. It will comprise representatives of the Economic and Social Committee and its CEEC opposite numbers. The groundwork for these bodies could be prepared by specialist working groups or experts. Such bodies should also be included in all other cooperation and partnership agreements.

7.7.3. Trade unions and employers' associations should be involved in selected projects or in cooperation on specific issues. This is particularly necessary where their interests are directly affected, e.g. in connection with corporate restructuring, the improvement of border crossings, measures for reducing red tape and qualification requirements.

7.7.4. Access to information and participation in discussions are vital prerequisites for consultative mechanisms and the right to an appropriate say in relevant matters. The regional conferences - or at least the preparatory meetings for Helsinki - should secure rights of participation and address for economic and social interest groups.

7.8. Whilst the necessary exchange of information, the establishment of contacts and the decisive move to involve economic and social interest groups must be initiated by the interested parties, the main players must pledge their agreement. It is conceivable that the Committee could take on this role of information supplier and broker with regard to pan-European cooperation in transport, at least until the Helsinki conference.

8. Outlook for Helsinki

8.1. To summarize, the Committee would hope to see the following emerging from the run-up to Helsinki and the conference itself:

- progress in the field of transport policy, to be achieved by closing gaps in the regulations governing fair competition, putting forward possible solutions to the problems of funding transport projects, taking strategic action to improve social regulations, transport safety, consumer protection and environmental protection and adopting an integrated approach to improving quality and efficiency in all modes of transport;

- transparency and improved cooperation between states and at parliamentary level, with the greater involvement of socio-economic interest groups; such measures are also a pre-requisite for a better understanding, on the part of citizens and users, of pan-European links;

- the introduction of flexible mechanisms for holding mandatory consultations with employers' and trade associations, environmental and consumer organizations and trade unions when transport policy decisions are taken as part of the structured dialogue provided for in the agreements, when transnational transport projects are put into practice and when an integrated pan-European transport policy is formulated.

8.2. The Crete conference was encouraging. A larger number of interested parties from the CEECs and socio-economic groupings were able to participate in the open debates.

The ESC would like the Mediterranean countries to be seen to be included in the pan-European transport debate. It would also like once again to be allowed to bring an influence to bear by exercising an advisory role at the Helsinki conference as one of a broad spectrum of participants. At Helsinki the debate should be developed and extended from government to parliamentary level and the socio-economic groupings. In any event the views of the EU's neighbours should be given more prominence than at previous conferences.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() This committee is co-chaired by the MEP, Mr Luettge, and Mr Hahn from the Commission's DGVII and consists of members of the European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism and representatives of the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the Economic and Social Committee, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC).

() Spatial planning and interregional cooperation in the Mediterranean area (Rapporteurs: Mr Cal/Mr Amato), March 1995; Euro-Mediterranean partnership (Rapporteur: Mr Meriano), September 1995.

() I. Tallinn-Riga-Kaunas-Warsaw; II. Berlin-Warsaw-Minsk-Moscow; III. Berlin-Wroclaw-Katowice-Lvov-Kiev; IV. Dresden-Prague-Bratislava-Gyoer-Budapest-Arad-Craiova-Sofia-Thessaloniki/plovdiv-Istanbul; V. Trieste/Koper-Postojna-Ljubljana-Budapest-Uzgorod-Lvov; VI. Gdansk-Katowice-Zilina; VII. Danube; VIII. Durres-Tirana-Skopje-Sofia-Plovdiv-Burgas-Varna; XI. Plovdiv-Bucharest-Kichinev-Ljubasivka-Kiev-Vitebsk-Pskov-St. Petersburg-Helsinki (from the joint Commission, UN-ECE and CEMT report presented to the Crete Conference in March 1994).

() OJ No C 352, 30. 12. 1993, p. 23.

APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during the discussion:

Point 8.1 first indent

Insert the following after the word 'achieved`:

'by emphasizing the central role of effective transport for the functioning of the EU's internal market and for practical cooperation at regional and pan-European level, and by closing...`

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Voting:

For: 35, against: 46, abstentions: 8.

Point 8.1 third indent

Amend first line to read as follows:

'the introduction of flexible mechanisms for consultations and interaction with...`

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Voting:

For: 21, against: 46, abstentions: 8.