Presentazione di PowerPoint

1
Adriatic-Baltic Landbridge
WP 4 Institutional settings
Overview of achievements and summary Vilem
Cekajle The Region of South Bohemia A-B
Landbridge Final Conference Venice, Italy,
23/04/2008
2
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (1)

• What we had?
• Transport surveys (road, rail, maritime and
  waterways)
• Logistic possibilites and state of the art
  analyse in the field of logistics
• Spatial situation analyse including the
  socio-economic data
• Pilot projects evaluating the possibility to use
  the infrastructure to run a new services

3
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (2)

• What we did not have?
• We are not alone - what are the opinions and the
  ideas of other players that are linked to A-B
  area (ie. Scandinavia, but also main private
  operators as possible clients etc.)
• Who are the players that are, or possibly could
  be influencing the development of the trasport
  infrastructure?

4
WP 4 Why Institutional Settings? (3)

• What we did not have?
• Who is responsible for what and what are the
  diferences among the regions and states?
• What are the experiences of diferent actors with
  the development of Trans European transport
  infrastracture? Are there any chances to
  coorinate the development along the whole
  itineraries?

5
WP 4 Institutional settings - partners

• The Region of South Bohemia (SBR) WP Leader
• Institutional Settings and profiling- Action
  Leader
• Maritime Institute Gdansk (MIG)
• Extra CADSES Action Leader
• AMRIE
• High Level Advisory Board - Action Leader
• Central European initiative (CEI)
• Spatial Development Forum - Action Leader

6
Structure of WP 4

• High Level Advisory Board consultations during
  the entire project summary of Results from
  HLAB
• Extra CADSES geographic considerations from
  consultations with Stakeholders from Area wich
  influence Transport Flows in A-B Landbridge
• Spatial Development Considerations from
  consultation with Non-Parther Stakeholders and
  experts
• Institutional profile of the A-B Landbridge
  corridor
• Institutional

7
High Level Advisory Board (HLAB) General
overview

• HLAB was organised as a consultation group
  consisting of 3 main reference groups
• Public authorities ie. Ministries of Transport
  and other relevant ministries in a number of EU
  countries, regions, cities, public associations
  etc.
• Organisations representing particular categories
  of the transport sector (EIRAC, etc.)
• Industry representatives divided per categories
  in order to ensure knowledge across the various
  fields of business in the intermodal industry
  (e.g. multimode freight operators Railways
  Intermodal Operators Terminals Equipment
  suppliers etc.)

8
HLAB The role and objectives

• The role of the HLAB was
• to ensure that there will be coordination
  between requirements of the represented
  organisations/ institutions and the actions
  undertaken by the project
• to receive feedback on the activities and
  results of A-B Landbridge
• to ensure that the results and actions of the
  A-B Landbridge project are promulgated in the
  different Countries involved, in terms of
  business advice and policy recommendations

9
HLAB Organisation and events

• Database of key players and stakeholders
  developed including several key institutions and
  stakeholder involved in trasport infrastructure
  development in each represented country and the
  EU as a whole.
• Two meetings organised
• 1st meeting in Castellanza, September 2006
• 2nd meeting in Sofia, 9th November 2007.

10
HLAB - Results and conslusions (1)

• The objective of the project is not and should
  not be considered as to connect two geographical
  areas. The Baltic/Adriatic ports do not only
  represent a starting/ending point, but a
  gate/linkages towards other geographical areas in
  order to cope with already congestionated/saturate
  d corridors
• The project should not seek to identify
  solutions and corridors to develop traffic flows
  starting only in the Baltic and ending in the
  Adriatic and viceversa. There might be different
  solutions and corridors which will start/end from
  different geografical areas passing through the
  Baltic and the Adriatic and ending/starting in
  different points around the Central/Eastern
  Europe.

11
HLAB - Results and conslusions (2)

• It should be recognised the role of ports in the
  development of intermodality and the possibility
  of creating clusters in order to maximise the
  efficiency of the port systems and create
  synergies between ports. This could be done if
  ports differentiates their offer (e.g. bulk,
  container, ro-ro) instead of competing. This
  issue is more pressing in the Adriatic area where
  there are various ports divided by short
  distances that compete for the market share. For
  the contrary, good examples of port clusters and
  differentiation among them are in Finland.
• We are assisting nowadays to the shift of the
  location of the production and distribution
  centres in Europe toward the East of Europe,
  which should be taken into account when talking
  about sea motorways and TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT
  NETWORK, since the economic and productive
  systems are directly related to the transport
  flows.

12
HLAB - Results and conslusions (3)

• In terms of future development, the European
  Unions enlargement to the East will move the
  Adriatic Baltic area into a central stage
  position, marking a shift away from the Unions
  geo-economic centre of gravity.

13
Extra CADSES consultations

• The first round of consultations was carried out
  during the Baltic Ro-Ro and Ferry Conference 2006
  Trade growth In the Baltic area impact on
  Ro-Ro and Ferry market, which took place on
  11-12 October 2006 in Gdynia, with
  representatives of selected shipping lines, ports
  and forwarders.
• The second round of consultations was carried out
  using a questionnaire that was discussed with the
  representatives of Ministry of Transport and
  Communications, Finland, Ministry of Economic
  Affairs and Communications, Estonia, and Ministry
  of Transport Latvia.

14
Conclusions and recommendations

• The general conclusions suggest to focus further
  more on following aspects
• The necessity to specify of the kind of possible
  cargo to be transported by the infrastructure and
  the profile of enterprises that would be possible
  clients of the planned infrastructure and secure
  their wider involvement (ie. Business case
  studies)
• Focus more on the role of the ports, port
  operators and port-oriented players as a crucial
  hubs and take into consideration that they see AB
  Landbridge corridor as a chance for enhanced
  development of Motorways of the Sea (MoS) and
  Short-Sea Shipping (SSS).

15
Spatial Development Forum (SDF)

• Organised under the motto Planning
  Infrastructure for Regional Development as an
  associated event on the 22nd May 2007 in Vienna,
  Austria at the Tech Gate, in the frame of REAL
  CORP 2007, 12th Conference on Urban Planning and
  Regional Cooperation and the Information Society.
  (REAL CORP 2007)
• The SDF was attended by more than 60 high level
  participants from the whole EU and qualified
  experts in the field of spatial development and
  transport infrastructure development taking part
  in the discussion.

16
SDF - The Concept (1)
Session 1 Territorial Development in the frame
of the European Spatial Development Perspective -
The focus of this session was to discuss the link
of the project idea to the EU strategic vision of
the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP) as an instrument for territorial
cooperation. Session 2 Planning growth through
infrastructure development what lessons learnt?
- Focus of this panel was on the impact of
transport infrastructures and the accessibility
of the territory on the economic growth of
regions. In this context, attention was given to
relations between the development of
infrastructure of various transport modes and the
increased potential of regions
17
SDF - The Concept (2)
Session 3 New trends in logistics and its role
in the development of corridors Focus This panel
provided an opportunity for forward-looking
discussion on the logistics-related challenges in
the Adriatic-Baltic area and beyond and with
dealt with the topic of motorways of the sea and
new transport scenarios. Session 4
Transnational cooperation in spatial planning
seeking for a new momentum Focus The main
purpose of this concluding panel was to provide a
platform for discussion on the role of
international-level spatial planning, mainly
related to the development of transport
infrastructure. Can such planning be effective in
country interest-driven Europe? What is
experience of Pan-European transport corridors
and other transnational spatial initiatives? How
can the current institutional setting be improved
to better respond to the ever-changing European
space?
18
SDF - Results and conslusions (1)

• The outputs of the update of the document of the
  European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
  should be taken into account when considering the
  development of corridors
• A key issue for the benefit of the proposed
  corridors by A-B remains the possibility of
  funding available and the accessibility of funds,
  for those cities and regions that are lagging
  behind. It needs to be mentioned that the current
  tools are mainly focused on the economically
  effective investments, which are usually suitable
  for PPP (public-private partnership) approach and
  there is still a gap for instruments for
  development of prior cohesion infrastructure.

19
SDF - Results and conslusions (2)

• Experience shows the necessity of putting
  together all actors interested in the development
  of corridors for economic growth of a particular
  region, meaning that cooperation among all
  stakeholders remains a crucial factor for
  development not only from the point of view of
  the funding issues, but also from the point of
  view ensuring that the transport development is a
  common priority of all actors in the relevant
  regions.
• When talking about the realisation of corridors,
  significant attention should be paid to the
  question of international coordination of the
  corridor, as there are examples of corridors
  where no coordinated development hinders the
  utilisation of the whole potential along the
  whole corridor, there are also examples where
  coordination helped to solve many issues
  regarding the final realisation of prior
  corridors.

20
SDF - Results and conslusions (3)

• The cost of the non-realization of corridors
  should be taken into account an important
  aspect underlined during the SDF that should be
  taken into account when analysing the grounds for
  realisation corridors. Issue of even conditions
  for regional development where transport
  infrastructure plays the main role should be
  addressed and taken into account when preparing
  any future spatial or transport development
  strategies on EU level.
• Furthermore the transport and spatial strategies
  at EU level should be part of one complex
  strategy for the future development of regions in
  EU.

21
Institutional settings Basic scope (1)

• General objectives
• Who is Who
• What are the soft bottlenecks/ suggested
  improvements
• What are the possbilities of soft measures to
  improve the A-B Landbridge connection

22
Institutional settings Basic scope (2)

• To provide a description of the different levels
  of institutional setting involved in transport
  infrastructure planning and deployment in the A-B
  countries including the settings at the level of
  international cooperation in transport
  development
• To analyse the described state-of-the art
  regarding institutional setting for A-B
  Landbridge and identify institutional
  considerations for facilitating future
  collaborations beyond the completion of the
  project, focussing on
• main problems that could hinder or complicate or
  are already complicating possible cooperation in
  transport infrastructure development
• could complicate or are complicating the
  effective utilisation of already existing or
  planned infrastructure

23
Institutional Settings Main problems (1)

• Overall planning process is very bureacratic and
  thus complicating the possibility to act fast
  even the conditions are changig quite rapidly
• The settings and responsibilities are diferent
  for each state making it very complicated when
  trying to coordinate the whole proces the
  division of roles and responsibilities are not
  always clear, in many cases experimental
  approach prevails, like for PPP
• Even if we are talking about multimodality the
  diferent transport sectors are competing for
  financing which makes it nearly impossible to
  reach a working balanced multimodal system

24
Institutional Settings Main problems (2)

• The fluid political situation is complicating the
  situation as not always the priorities remains
  the same, which is very crutial espetially for
  any international connection where the planning
  procedure and the coordination takes long time
• The overall situation is also complicated by the
  broken connestions due to the iron curtain
  and diferent state of the art situation in old
  and new member states which influences the
  overall view on priorities
• In many cases even when an agreement is reached
  it does not always include a binding technical
  standards regarding the interoperability which
  makes the corridor as a whole less efective and
  therefore less attractive for clients, investors
  etc.

25
Thank you for your attention Vilem
Cekajle The Region of South Bohemia National
Coordinator for Czech Republic cekajle_at_eurocorrid
or.cz