Chairman: G. Patsiavos, Head of International Affairs Division, Greek Ministry of Transport and Communications Secretary: Ch. Taxiltaris, Professor AUTh Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries REPUBLIC OF GREECE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION Workshop 4 “Strengthening of cooperation and monitoring”

Workshop 4: Diary 20 March 2007: Definition of Workshops by DG TREN 17 May 2007: Call for participation - Set of basis of work [HLG-2 report, DG TREN guidelines at the last Coordinators meeting, COM(2007)32 final ] 1 June 2007: 1 st call for input on three issues: 1. Institutional framework (type of binding document) 2. Coordination framework (structures) 3. Integration of existing structures Inputs received  Corridor I (by Mr. Miettinen, 11 June 2007)  Corridor III (by Mrs. Wunderlich, 12 June 2007) – the initial position within the public consultation  Corridor VI (by Mr. Zarnoch, 6 June 2007)  Corridor X – the initial position within the public consultation 22 August 2007: Summary of inputs received and 2 nd call for input Other inputs received after 2 nd call  Corridor IV (by Mr. Nowak, 18 October 2007)  Corridor VII (by Mr. Dionelis, 24 August 2007) – the initial position within the public consultation 24 October 2007: This summary of all views expressed up today within Workshop 4

1. Institutional framework (type of binding document) PEC I: A new MoU for the entire axis is necessary. The simple and light type of agreement of an MoU is more likely to be achieved within reasonable timeframes. The will to cooperate is that matters and not the agreement, since, regardless of the type of agreement, if any country cannot or will not adhere the agreement for any reason the axis structures cannot react in anyway. Stronger agreements can be drawn for projects and specific corridor development programs between affected countries and when they are ready for it. PEC III: An MoU between the Commission and the countries along a priority axis should be concluded. The alternative to an MoU would be an agreement or a settlement to be legally binding but it would be problematic due to possible conflicts with the prevailing planning laws of the participating countries and due to procedural obstacles (ratification). PEC IV: An MoU can contain a binding commitment. It has the advantage that becomes legally valid more quickly than a multilateral agreement, which might take years to ratify. PEC VI: Cooperation can be performed only on the base of existing structures. More binding decisions can be taken within ECMT, and neighboring countries can be occasionally invited for taking necessary decisions with the EU countries. PEC VII: Signing of a binding document (International Agreement, Treaty or any other type of Legal Instrument), which will set the rules for the operation of the general system. In this International Agreement or Treaty, a clear reference should be made for the existing MoUs of the Corridors function, in order to keep in force their power. PEC X: There is need for a more binding document, where there is relevant maturity of the concerned countries, i.e. accession countries, the Energy Treaty could be extended to the Transport sector.

2. Coordination framework (structures) 1/2 PEC I: Does not quite agree with the framework outlined by the Commission. Ministerial meetings are difficult to organize (number of Ministers increases). Main coordinating body would be a Steering Committee of the Axis, composed by high-level officials of all countries acting on behalf of Ministers of Transport. Coordinator would be an ideal Chairman of the Steering Committee for political networking. Secretariat assists in technical and administrative matters the Committee and the Coordinator. Regional working groups include existing PECs Steering Committees. PEC III: DG TREN representatives are responsible for the coordination with the neighboring countries along the priority axes. A Steering Committee with national representatives and EU representative is established (in the case of Central Axis by extension of PEC III SC). A Secretariat for the entire axis is recommended. National coordinators (not the members of the SC) would be the direct partners of the Secretariat. PEC IV: Axes should be realized by broken down into several sections of stronger political, economic and cultural homogeneity, in order to prevent problems arising in individual sections from affecting other sections or an entire Axis. The existing structures of Steering Committees and Technical Secretariats should be maintained in principle. Every Axis should be assigned such a structure for each one of the sections of an Axis, supported by Regional Committees. The coordination framework should be reinforced: The Steering Committee should receive the active support of the Commission DG TREN, be granted decision making authority, competences to funding of proposed measures and control of construction activities. The Secretariat should be given a sound financial basis. The rights and obligations of the Steering Committee and the Secretariat should be briefly regulated by the agreement of the Axis.

2. Coordination framework (structures) 2/2 PEC VII: A High Level Group composed by countries’ and major international organizations’ representatives will steer the work of all the system should be the only decision making body, permanently chaired by a Senior Official of the European Commission and responsible to define the final alignment and standards of the axes comprising the Corridors. A Regional Steering Group with a Chairman and a Secretary per Axis should be established with only technical duties, as well as one Technical Secretariat to provide technical support to all the Regional Steering Groups (in which Corridors’ Chairs permanently should participate) and fully financed by the European Commission. PEC VI: Agrees with the framework outlined by the Commission. Crucial point is financing of Secretariats. The coordinators’ scheme could be introduced for certain projects of European interest. Finds PEC VII proposal for structures too complicated. PEC X: A Steering Group composed by high-level officials of all countries acting on behalf of Ministers of Transport and EU representative would be the coordination – implementation body, supported by a Regulatory/ Administrative Unit (Secretariat) for technical and administrative support. Sectorial (regional) TS act under the Regulatory/ Administrative Unit, comprising the existing PECs Secretariats. Financing could come from EU funds and national resources, in the model of the Energy Treaty and SEETO.

3. Integration of existing structures PEC I: Cooperation framework for the Northern Axis needs to be established on entirely new basis, by creating a single axis level cooperation structure under the auspices of the Commission. PEC III: Reference is made only for the case of PEC III, where in the case of Central Axis the Steering Committee of PEC III is extended to cover the additional countries along the Axis. PEC IV: The existing Steering Committees become Regional Committees to support the Steering Committee of the Axis. “Steering Committees and Secretariats should be also responsible for any Corridors that might be located in the area of an Axis so that diverging activities are not carried out for Corridors and Axes by different committees and to guarantee a uniform procedure for Corridors and Axes.” PEC VI: We should be based on the five new axes than existing structures if we decide to appoint Regional Steering Groups. PEC VII: The Chairs (or other key-persons) of the existing PECs and other international bodies should be permanent participants in one or more Regional Steering Groups. A special budget for the operation of the Technical Secretariat shall be allocated for services of a pool of experts (with Secretaries of the existing Corridors on top) to assist the function of the Secretariat when necessary. PEC X: Existing Technical Secretariats would be in the future Sectorial Technical Secretariats under a central Regulatory/ Administrative Unit.

Positions summary 1/3 PEC INew MoU per Axis. Stronger agreements on specific projects or corridors. PEC IIINew MoU per Axis. PEC IVAn MoU can contain a binding commitment. PEC VIExisting MoUs. More binding decisions can be taken within ECMT PEC VIIA binding document (International Agreement, Treaty etc.), with reference to the existing MoUs. PEC XA binding document where there is maturity of the concerned countries (e.g. extension of Energy Treaty to the Transport sector. Institutional framework (type of binding document)

Positions summary 2/3 PEC ISteering Committee for the entire Axis. Coordinator ideal Chairman. Secretariat for the SC technical/ administrative support. Regional working groups. PEC IIIDG TREN responsible for the coordination with countries along all axes. Steering Committee and Secretariat for the entire Axis. National coordinators for cooperation with the Secretariat. PEC IVEvery Axis should be assigned Steering Committee and Technical Secretariat supported by Regional Committees for each one of the sections of an Axis. PEC VIEC proposal (Ministerial Meetings, Regional Steering Groups, Secretariat). Coordinators for certain projects of European interest. PEC VIIHLG (countries, international organizations) permanently chaired by EC. Regional Steering Groups, per Axis (incl. Corridors’ Chairs) with only technical duties. One Secretariat to provide technical support to all the Regional Steering Groups. PEC XSteering Group per Priority Axis, supported by a Regulatory/ Administrative Unit (Secretariat) for technical and administrative support. Sectorial (regional) Technical Secretariats. Coordination framework (structures)

Positions summary 3/3 PEC IRegional working groups (including existing PECs SCs) if they decide to continue their work. PEC IIIIn the case of Central Axis the SC of PEC III is extended to cover the additional countries. PEC IV“Steering Committees and Secretariats should be also responsible for any Corridors that might be located in the area of an Axis.” PEC VICooperation of Regional Steering Groups with other organizations. PEC VIIExisting international bodies participants in Regional Steering Groups. Pool of experts (PECs Secretaries on top) to assist the Secretariat when necessary. PEC XExisting Technical Secretariats included in the Sectorial ones. Convergence to the view of Integration of existing structures

Discussion 1/2 1.It seems more realistic to retain the existing volunteer-based framework with the signing of an MoU per priority axis. That could be achieved in reasonable timeframes, while stronger agreements could be signed for specific projects or group of countries when the situation is mature enough. 2.Concerning the structures proposed by the Commission: PEC VI agrees, PEC IV proposes the establishment of a High Level Group, while the rest are additionally in favor of establishing a Steering Committee/ Group for the implementation of the MoU and the coordination of the activities. In the latter the ministerial meetings are avoided through the representation of high-level representatives of the Ministers to the Steering Committees.

Discussion 2/2 A Secretariat supports the Steering Committee: - PECs III and VI support one Secretariat for the entire axis, while PECs I and X propose Regional Working Groups and Sectorial Technical Secretariats incorporating the existing structures, Steering Committees and Technical Secretariats, respectively. - PECs IV and VII propose Regional Steering Groups (Committees). - PECs I and VI talk about Coordinators scheme introduction, the first to be an ideal permanent Chairman of the Steering Committee and the second for certain projects. Also PEC IV suggests the assignment of a Coordinator for the case of the Balkan region. Convergence to the view of integration of existing structures Finally, concerning the extension of existing structures to the non- covered regions PEC X suggests a combination with creation of new structures in some cases and extension of others where the geographical coverage and linkage allows it. Also PEC’s III structures are extended (only) in the case of Central Axis.