| Objectives |
The ‘Europeanisation’ of transport policy raises new issues for the scientific field of evaluation. First, the ‘add-on’ of another level to the transport policy making, i.e. of the European level, has re-focused attention on the decision-making process and on the conflicts inherent to it as a fundamental part of policy analysis. Second, it made clear that policy assessment or evaluation is distinct from project and in particular infrastructure appraisal. Third, it necessitated a comprehensive consideration of developments in the transport sector in conjunction with developments in other policy arenas.
In TENASSESS, the theme of policy-making has been at the centre of considerations. The study of the policy process is important for any assessment exercise that directly or indirectly deals with policy analysis. Without knowledge of how policy is made, including of the conflicting interests it entails, it is not possible to interpret the results of impact assessment exercises or understand the significance of certain impacts for specific impact groups or for policy more generally. More importantly, without knowledge of the policy process, it is not possible to provide advice to policy-makers, less so to develop decision support tools. Last but not least, knowledge of the policy process guards against the false or manipulative exploitation of research results and can thus contribute to a better interaction between science and policy.
In TENASSESS the study of policy processes had a twofold objective: the first objective was to understand these better for the reasons stated above; the second was to collect empirical material for the development of decision support tools. Two such tools were developed by TENASSESS: the TENASSESS Policy Assessment (PAM) tool; and the TENASSESS Barrier Model.
Both the TENASSESS PAM and the TENASSESS Barrier Models are tools that assist rational thinking. The TENASSESS PAM helps assess the degree of congruence between any one project’s objectives and that of transport policy from the perspective of different actors’ viewpoints – in that it provides an interface between project appraisal and policy assessment. The TENASSESS Barrier Model helps identify and anticipate barriers likely to occur during the implementation process of any transport policy initiative. It is a dynamic model which can be used in an interactive manner to assist planning and which helps make planners and policy-makers aware of the consequences of their actions in particular planning contexts.
The main findings of the TENASSESS project can be summarised as follows:
-
Many of the problems encountered in implementing the European Common Transport Policy (CTP) relate to the variation in the regulatory environments in the field of transport across Member States. The following were identified as of specific importance: the variation in the distribution of administrative responsibility and competencies at the national level; the variation in the degree of planning of transport policy in the form of master plans but also assessment and/or evaluation frameworks; the variation in the degree of centralisation or decentralisation, especially with respect to the role assigned to the regions, hence the process of territorialisation, and the variation in the degree of negotiation with relevant actors, including citizens’ movements or the public at large.
At the same time there are some general harmonising trends across all four dimensions which can, in part, be attributed to the influence of the European Union: i.e. towards greater sharing of responsibility and stronger co-ordination at the national administrative level; towards the development of a planning structure that fits the requirements of European CTP; towards the devolution of power to the regions, that is, decentralisation; and towards a stronger emphasis on negotiation at all levels.
-
Three general conflict areas which are common to all European countries can be identified. They comprise: Conflicts about competencies: Despite the principle of subsidiarity, the borders between the four established political levels – local, regional, national and European – remain diffuse, giving rise to conflicts about competencies. Problems in co-ordination arise by the fact that the European Commission represents neither the sole, nor the first, attempt at harmonisation at policy level. Thematic conflict ‘environment vs. economic development’: Objectives are generally set in both directions, but the incompatibility or lack of direct congruence displayed between the two is often the source of fierce debate about effectiveness and equity in the medium- to long-term. Conflicts related to the re-structuring of the transport market. Currently, and with very few exceptions, deregulation and the privatisation of the transport market is a generally agreed-upon policy agenda. Nevertheless a distinction can be drawn between those actors in favour of a swift transformation towards an open market system, and those supporting a slower pace and longer phase-out periods.
-
It is possible to distinguish four ‘ideal type’ transport policy frameworks. The traditional transport planning approach assumes that transport primarily is there to serve structural inequalities as reflected in particular at regional level. For this policy framework, the goals of regional cohesion and development are of particular relevance and guide transport policy-making, primarily infrastructure investment. A ‘modern’ variant of the transport planning approach emerged with the onset of privatisation. Under this approach, planning and infrastructure investment are still important, only the planner ought to be the private economic actor, less so the state for which within-sector efficiency becomes of utmost significance. The liberal market approach to transport development considers it important to regulate the transport sector through primarily economic instruments. Pricing instruments and taxation are under this scheme of particular relevance. So is liberalisation and privatisation when associated with greater accountability and transparency in operations. The ecological approach to transport, considers transport development at best a necessary evil. Transport is considered one main source of pollution, therefore infrastructure investment is considered ‘bad’ – instead what is called for are measures for making it less necessary to travel and strict environmental regulation.
No one national transport policy can be mapped clearly against the above four-fold typology. This is why we talk of ‘ideal’ type policy frameworks or policy lenses and not of real policy environments. Nevertheless the above policy packages could be said to describe the main rupture points or cleavages within national transport policy environments as well as at the European level.
-
There are six main issues in the contemporary landscape of European (Common) Transport Policy at the level of implementation of major infrastructure projects: The problem of the ‘missing-link’: the ‘missing-link’ concept and the TEN represented for their promoters a ‘best-practice’ model for CTP. In practice this model did not work in as straight-forward a manner as was expected. The truly relevant question in terms of implementation has therefore not been the level of ‘maturity’ of the link as such, but rather its level of maturity in each country. The role of the ‘frontier’ or of borderline zones: In several cases the implementation of TEN projects highlights an inter-regional European dimension that emerges as significant through the decision-making processes. There are two distinct ways of considering this specific European resource: either as an obstacle or as delineating a specific zone of opportunity. The territorialisation of the decision-making process and in relation to this the role of regional authorities and the question of risk sharing and responsibility: There is bottom-up territorialisation process characterised by the regions demanding more of a say with regards the implementation of infrastructure projects. On the other hand – and this is the top-down aspect of the process – the state wishes indeed to involve regions in transport planning in order to better manage risks. The issue of pricing as a strategic notion: At the level of the Common Transport Policy, the objectives of pricing measures are set in the framework of market regulation — the objective being to cover both internal and external costs. Yet such measures reflect other and often contradictory objectives as well, primarily the wish to regulate road for the benefit of environmental protection and the intention to make the infrastructure pay for itself. The problem of financing: The European Union has proposed the consideration of public-private partnerships as a solution. In practice public-private partnerships are difficult to implement Another way to approach the financing problem has been through phasing of the project or through splitting it into independent, albeit inter-related elements. The role of environmental appraisal: Environmental appraisal is today a part of all decision processes concerning transport infrastructures. In the majority of the cases, the concrete issue of such an appraisal is an impact study. But the positioning and significance of this differs from case to case, the differences deriving mainly from the differences in the national institutional frameworks.
-
The need for co-ordination emerges as a major issue in the implementation of major transport infrastructure projects. The resolution of conflicts of interest often requires mediation. It is this ‘mediatory’ role which is new for the arena of co-ordination and which often leads to the emergence of a principal individual agent as central to this process. This is at the same time the weakest point of the decision process. The resolution of conflicts of interests through mediation is only effective in the long-term if it represents at the same time a process of institutional learning.
-
Establishing mechanisms for the participation of citizens’ in the decision process is one important element of the institutional learning dimension to transport policy. The vehicle of environmental appraisal accompanied by a public inquiry is one such institutional mechanism, yet not adequate as currently practised. The reasons are manifold: most relevant are its timing; and related to this its limited scope. It is also important to realise that trust is an important component of any decision process. The overcoming of the current trust deficit cannot be achieved through information dissemination alone. It requires an all-encompassing reform of the decision process to take into account the new demands but also the new skills of citizens in liberal democratic societies.
-
New modes of decision-making that address the current democratic deficit can also contribute to a better appreciation of the relevance of the dimension of time in transport. Taking account of time involves a reconsideration of the relations between transport, economic growth, the valoratisation of speed and social equity. For the planning of transport projects it means recognising, on the one hand, time-based differences and time-based roots of barriers to their successful realisation and, on the other, the time intensive nature of co-ordination and synchronisation of action across administrative levels and national boundaries.
The method and results of the TENASSESS project can be read in detail in the TENASSESS Final Report. This will be published by DG Energy and Transport (forthcoming, 2000). It is also available upon request from the project co-ordinator, ICCR.
|
| Project Partners |
 NEI, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Halcrow Fox, London, UK
INRETS, Arcueil Cedex, France
PLANCO, Essen, Germany
SYSTEMA, Athens, Greece
IFP, Lyngby, Denmark
TRT, Milano, Italy
NEA, Rijswijk, The Neterlands
ERRI, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Gruppo Clas, Milano, Italy
UWCC, Cardiff, UK
FACTUM, Vienna, Austria
LESEC, Barcelona, Spain |
