EUROPE'S WORLD DEBATING FORUM

Autumn 2006

by Howard R. Kirby

One cannot disagree with the three main points that led M. Barrot to propose changes in policy in his mid-term review (“Keep Europe moving – sustainable mobility for our continent”) of the Commission’s 2001 White Paper on Transport. Globalisation, terrorism (or rather the threat of terrorism) and global warming have all become more dominant policy concerns since then. But it is only terrorism that is a new issue. Strangely, whilst mentioned at the outset of Mr Barrot’s paper, it is mentioned not at all thereafter. The “increasingly crucial” theme of mobility (“essential for European citizens’ freedom of movement and for economic growth”) is not tempered by a recognition that impediments to that mobility, sometimes severe ones (as recently experienced at UK airports), could all too easily arise as more checks are put in place to reduce the threat.

The usual goal of economic growth remains paramount, with key projects to deliver. The policy and projects are meant to lead to greater efficiency and to reductions in pollution, with road and air transport particular targets to become “greener”. Instruments to help achieve this goal are logistics, cleaner propulsion systems and intelligent transport systems (ITS). He rightly judges that ITS is important for many aspects of transport; the policy review itself highlights its applicability to navigation (via the Galileo satellites), car safety, air traffic management, the inter-operability of rail transport and river and sea traffic. One efficiency issue that should not be overlooked (for any policy instrument) is the need for transfer of knowledge and know-how from one sector (such as the automobile industry) to another (such as the rail or maritime industry).

Logistics is defined as if it were only concerned with transport and distribution systems. But the concept should embrace the whole supply chain, involving decisions not just on shipment but on what is being produced, where, by whom, for whom and by when. Firms – and even public sector organisations – can change the location of their activities as a result of a wider review of the supply chain. The follow-up Action Plan for Freight Transport Logistics, to be presented in 2007, might therefore be too restricted in scope.

A critical issue when applying any transport policy instrument is whether sufficient account is taken of the effect of the changes on others. A complementary issue is the planning and approval system that is involved. Planning is not a term that features in Mr Barrot’s paper; and whilst its importance is recognised in the policy review, the latter’s call for a “balanced approach” to land use planning lacks substance. A pity, as the planning process can be either an impediment to or an enabler of timely and appropriate decision-making.

Yet it is that issue of impediments to delivery upon which Mr Barrot places most emphasis. Change is what is needed; yet change, he fears, is feared. He questions whether the member states will make use of the powers granted them under various EU Directives, such as those governing rail traffic management and toll systems. Do they have the vision that whilst jobs might be lost in some sector in the short term there might be gains in others in the long term? It sounds as though the European Commission might need to do a better PR job with national governments, if the latter do not heed the opportunities provided by the former.

For Mr Barrot though it is finance that is key, particularly private sector finance. Public-Private Partnerships are regarded as inevitable despite their complexity, as is a restructuring of national enterprises. But one suspects that behind that advocacy lies the realisation that the public sector is typically risk-adverse, whereas the private sector is not. By forcing one sort of change, does one displace the original fear of change? Or replace it by another?

Making things happen is an art. Neither the private sector nor the public sector have a monopoly over that, so mutual co-operation is advantageous. The changes that the EU empowers the member states to do, need to be made easy to understand, easy to explain, easy to promulgate and easy to implement. Perhaps some changes in EC procedures would help: after all, the EC itself should not fear to change.