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

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 a suitable 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

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

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

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.

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 Low Medium High Source: TINA CZ 14.5 17.4 20.2 EST 1.1 1.1 1.4 HUN 12.7 13.9 16.5 PL 40.4 48.2 54.6 SLV 6.0 6.6 7.9 LAT 1.3 1.4 1.6 LIT 1.8 2.0 2.2 ROM 9.8 10.5 11.9 SLK 5.8 6.4 7.8 BUL 3.0 3.1 5.4

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 to prepare 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

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.

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 TransEuropean-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 cofinancing 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

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.

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 panEuropean 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 PanEuropean 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

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 macroeconomic 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 socioeconomic 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

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

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

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

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

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 non16

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

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

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

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, BosniaHerzegovina, 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

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 reconfiguration 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

[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

22