Transport and Communications Group

MINUTES of meeting in the NSC Transport & Communications group, Aarhus, Denmark, 17 April 2002.

Present:

Jan Hallberg, Chair, Västra Götaland region
Jon Halvard Eide, Co-ordinator, Vest-Agder fylkeskommune
Dennis Freeman, Aberdeenshire Council (Sco)
Gordon Flemming, Dundee City Council (--"--)
Tommy Madsen, North-Jutland (Den)
Brian Sørensen, Aarhus Amt (--"--)
Flemming Wennike, Ringkøbing Amt (--"--)
Hanne Marie Sørensen, Viborg Amt (--"--)
Maria A. Larsson, Västra Götaland region (Swe)
Bengt Wennerberg, Business Region Gothenburg (--"--)
Leif Storsve, Vest-Agder fylkeskommune (Nor)
Odd Moldestad, Sør-Trøndelag fylkeskommune (--"--)
Hans Jurgen Hett, Schleswig Holstein (Ger)
Wim Stubbe, Euregio Scheldemond (Belgium)
Henrik M. Jensen, NSC Secretariat Viborg
Karen Greve Somerset, NSC Secretariat Viborg

Apologies: Lars Dagnæs, South Jutland region (Den)
Chris Kutesko, Norfolk County (UK)

Summary of attendance:
16 participants, representing 11 regions in 6 NSC member countries

Welcome:
The organising host, Mr. Brian Sørensen, welcomed the group to Aarhus

09/02: Minutes of meeting in Aberdeenshire, 24-25 January
Dennis Freeman wanted to make a correction to item 04/02, "Decision/follow-up", p. 5, of the minutes. He stated that the minutes on this point wrongly indicate that Aberdeenshire has already agreed to act as a lead partner in an Interreg application for a sustainable transport programme. It is more correct to say that Aberdeenshire has agreed to co-ordinate the work to develop the project in an initial phase up to the application deadline, also including the role of being a liaison to the consultant- and that the decision on a formal lead partner role has to be taken later, in consultation with the involved partners.

Decision: The minutes were approved with these remarks.

10/02: Update/practical preparations for the Sustainable Transport Conference in Aarhus 18-19 April
Brian Sørensen, Aarhus Amt, gave an update on the practical preparations for the Sustainable Transport Conference starting the day after. He said that everything now should be set and ready for the conference. However some minor changes have had to be made in the programme (order of speeches and persons). 98 participants had registered, representing Regional and Local councils, State agencies, Business organisations and industries, transport operators/companies, Ports, as well as Research institutions and universities. About 25 NSC member regions from all 8 member countries were represented, including about 30 regional- and local politicians. This was regarded to be a satisfactory level of attendance, particularly among the politicians who are one of the main target groups for the conference. It was also informed that the conference had been mentioned in some local media in the Aarhus area. Mr. Sørensen was asked to consider the option of making a "last minute reminder" of the conference to the local media, as the media in general tend to operate within a very short scope of time.

He then distributed the conference pack to the group members going to the conference.

Mr. Søresen informed that the best practice papers would only be available from the conference web site (Tommy Madsen, North Jutland, is responsible for the web site), and that all plenary speeches would be uploaded to the site as soon as they became available. This means that there will be no official conference report on paper.

Mr. Freeman went through the main elements of a Power Point-presentation that he had made on the Interreg 3B-bid for a Sustainable transport programme (Cf. item 11/02). The meeting then discussed practical arrangements on how to promote the programme during the conference. Mr. Eide informed that the programme would be mentioned in Gunn Marit Helgesens introduction speech in the opening session. It was agreed that the Power Point-presentation of the project should be displayed in a central place in the conference room.

On request, Mr.Flemming agreed to assist Mr. Eide in taking notes from the debate in the Public Transport session on 18 April. These notes will also be uploaded to the conference web site.

Decision/follow-up:

• The intergroup Task Force should evaluate different aspects of the conference, particularly regarding the role of such conferences in a future sustainable transport programme (Cf. item 11/02)
• Brian Sørensen and Tommy Madsen should collect and upload the plenary speeches to the conference web site
• The best practice chairmen from the group (Jon Halvard Eide, Lars Dagnæs and Dennis Freeman) should send a transcript of the debate (questions & answers) in their respective sessions to Tommy Madsen for uploading to the conference web site.
• Jon Halvard Eide writes an article on the conference for the NSC newsletter (to be published in May)

11/02: Status and progress of Interreg IIIB-bid on Sustainable transport programme
At the last meeting on 24-25 January, it was informed that Aberdeenshire had hired a consultant – Mr. Crawford McGhie in "Sistech" - to work out a draft Sustainable transport programme as an Interreg IIIB-bid. Such a draft was circulated to the group in February. Aberdeenshire is also involved in a similar sort of project in Scotland and has applied for funds from the Scottish Executive for this project.

Cf. item 09/02, Mr. Freeman stressed that Aberdeenshire has only agreed to co-ordinate the development of the project in an initial phase - up to the September (or possibly other) application deadline. He regards the recruitment of partners to be the greatest challenge for the project. In this picture it is important to have the NSC Environment group on board as well. A project like this, with a best practice profile, almost by nature needs many partners to work properly. It is therefore more important to have as many partners as possible on board, than to make the September 2002 application deadline. In our recruitment efforts, it is therefore important to emphasis that we are asking for contributions in kind. This means that potential partners will be asked to commit an annual worth of € 5000 in working time, equivalent to about 200 hours of work at an €25 per hour-rate.

A question was asked about the objective of the programme and what kind of sustainability concept it is going to apply.

The main objective of the programme is simply to promote sustainable transport by exchanging best practice, establishing networks and raising awareness among the public and politicians. The programme intends to apply a broad sustainability concept, covering both environmental, economical and social aspects/dimensions.

A point was made that it is a major challenge for the programme to ensure that best practice projects are actually implemented in other regions than where they originate. As the success of the programme to a large extent rests upon it’s ability to disseminate best practice throughout the North Sea regions, the group should consider the establishment of some kind of mechanism to monitor and report about the actual rate of implementation. It was assumed that an Interreg-application would also profit from such provisions.

The group was advised to consult the Interreg Secretariat in good time before the application deadline because the Secretariat is expected to be very busy, maybe too busy to answer questions when the deadline is approaching..

Decision/follow-up:

• The Co-ordinator contacts the Environment group in order to clarify their role in project (supposed to have been discussed at their meeting in Aarhus on 19 April). It should also be established whether their two members of the conference Task Force is willing to continue in an initial project group for the Interreg IIIB-bid.
• Brian Sørensen and Svend Tøfting, who have been members of the conference Task Force from the Transport group, should also consider their willingness & ability to continue in an initial project group, and inform the Co-ordinator and Dennis Freeman thereof. Depending on the outcome of the aforementioned, Freeman will take the necessary steps to constitute a working project group, and if required also recruit new members.
• Dennis Freeman distributes an updated project outline (e.g. in line with the Power Point-presentation made during the conference) to the group for review and comments. The incoming comments should as far as possible be reflected in the draft Interreg-application, which (if time) should be circulated to the (plenary) group(s) for a quick review before the final application is submitted.
• Each member of the group should shortly inform their respective authorities about the project, with a view of exploring their willingness to commit a contribution in kind as outlined above.
• The project should be promoted during the NSC General Assembly in Norfolk from 18 – 21 June. The General Assembly with the participation of most NSC member-regions could be a good forum to recruit partners. We should also provide the necessary facilities & procedures for the registration of interest/participation. The Co-ordinator will explore the option of promoting the project in conjunction with the delivery of the Transport & Communications group Annual report during the plenary session on Friday 21 June, preferably in some sort of co-operation with the Co-ordinator of the Environment group.

As a practical step, those of the group who are going to the General Assembly are kindly asked to inform the Co-ordinator thereof.

• The initial project group (as soon as it is established) should consider and explore any viable option to promote the project. This group should also consider how to handle the administrative procedures & requirements involved in an Interreg project.

12/02: EU Transport Policies
The meeting went through the "decision/follow-up" section of this item from the last meeting 24-25 January and noticed that several actions & recommendations still need to be implemented. These are referred to in the corresponding section of these minutes.

Since the last meeting, the following has happened at this front:

Participation at a meeting in the CPMR Intercommission transport group in Rennes 8 Febr

Mr. Steve Taylor from Aberdeenshire attended the meeting on behalf of the group – sponsored by the group’s budget for "extra" activities. On the agenda were: news from CPMR’s contacts with EU institutions, discussion of CPMR’s response to the EU White Paper on transport, including contributions from Geographical commissions like the NSC, Polycentrism and transport (Cf. a study made by the CPMR) and follow-up of the work after the seminar on European transport policy on 22 March (see separate section below).

A report from the Rennes-meeting was enclosed with the invitation to this meeting. The main points of the meeting can be summarised as follows:

• Ensure that the Commission DG for Transport & Energy learns about the realities faced in the peripheral regions and the difficulties of coherence.
• Prepare more operational proposals, identifying key routes to show importance of supporting intermodality.
• Find a number of best practice examples in the regions to present to the Commission
• Explore how the Scottish consultation model on transport could be adapted to a CPMR-context to feed into the TEN-T revision and long-term transport policy.
• Need to illustrate that transport development and regional development should be developed hand in hand.
• Explore the option of getting together 5 national Transport ministers to speak on the question of peripherality and transportation – possibly during CPMR’s General Assembly in Greece in September.

Next meeting in the Intercom transport group: Marseille 1 July.

White Paper response discussed at the NSC Executive Committee meeting on 1st March

The group’s White Paper response was on the agenda at the NSC Executive Committee meeting in Groeningen 1st March, and included in the meeting papers. In the introduction to this item on the agenda, the response is portrayed to be "in line with NSC's ambition of gaining a higher political profile (Cf. the political vision document)", and "by taking opportunities like this seriously, the Transport & Communications group has proved that the NSC is an organisation which has a role to play in Europe".

Several participants complimented our response. One of the NSC Vice Presidents, Gunn Marit Helgesen, said that the response is an excellent example of how we can promote the NSC in Europe, also in relation to the CPMR.

The response was also complimented by the Co-ordinator of the Environment group who found the analysis very interesting. However, he also emphasised the challenge of making sea transport less polluting (which is a particular concern for that group).

CPMR’s representative at the meeting stated that our response had been very much appreciated by the CPMR.

The representative of Euregio Scheldemond referred to a comment from his administration (only available in his native language) saying that our White Paper response puts too much emphasis on sea transport, and respectively too little emphasis on rail. I requested the representative to forward the comment to me in English for consideration in a revised position paper.

Participation at CPMR-seminar on European Transport policy – Santiago, Spain 22 March

Dennis Freeman and Jon Halvard Eide attended the seminar – also sponsored by the group’s budget for "extra" activities. The purpose of the seminar was to debate the EU Transport White Paper and its impact on peripheral maritime regions. About 130 people from 13 different countries (Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Greece, Malta, Netherlands, Belgium, UK, Finland, Estonia, Sweden and Norway) attended the seminar. The Commissioner for Energy & Transport, and Vice President of the EU Commission, Ms. Loyola de Palacio, was the keynote speaker. Besides, there were representatives from the Spanish EU Presidency, the EU Parliament and the Committee of Regions, as well as representatives from national ministries, transport companies, research institutions and universities, and from CPMR member regions.

In her speech, the Commissioner for Energy & Transport was happy to note that the different responses to the White Paper so far agree with its main policy. In order to shift the balance from road transport to less polluting modes, Ms. De Palacio upheld the view that progress needed to be made with regard to infrastructure pricing systems, together with a considerable improvement in rail- and sea transport services. Speaking on the regional dimension, she said that the regions play a central role as they are directly affected and that the Interreg programme has proven its role in relation the regions. She also claimed that Interreg 3B is perfectly suited to develop "Sea Highways" and to improve the competitiveness of the regions.

The following main topics were discussed during the seminar:

• The issue of funding, especially how to close the gap in the funding of TEN-projects
  -Cross-financing (e.g. road tolls to fund railway projects), requires a revision of the EU treaty
  -Public & private partnerships in the funding of infrastructure
  -The need for greater selectivity in the funding of TEN-projects
• Payment structure:
  -Also taking external costs (pollution, accidents) into account,
  -Finding a good balance between user- and public funds
• Tariff & taxes: the need to harmonise across national borders, establish a maximum level
• The role of the regions and the need to improve their standing in European transport policy
• The Spanish Presidency has circulated a questionnaire to the national delegations on the White Paper; to be discussed at the Transport Council in June.

There were some disagreements on the following issues:

• The need to restrict road traffic and air travel
• Deregulation of railways
• Cross-financing of infrastructure
• Direction of "territorial re-balancing of EU transport policy: (e.g. to the South, North or East?)

Regional perspective on the White Paper:

The main points of the regional representatives can be summarised as follows:

• The White Paper (WP) should emphasis more on the needs of peripheral regions
• The transport policy should be more differentiated according to the great variations in regional circumstances
• The WP lacks a territorial/spatial dimension (polycentrism), also lacking emphasis on economic and social cohesion
• Need for greater policy integration (transport – spatial planning)
• The WP neglects the issue of accessibility, incl. the social dimension; need to overcome the problems of isolation, need to focus more on the relations within the periphery
• The principle of solidarity funding (redistribution from rich to poor regions) should be considered
• The WP should put stronger emphasis on sea transport and on intermodality.
• Need for greater focus on safety and public transport,
• --------"---------------- on best practice

For further information, please see the seminar report, distributed to the participants before the meeting, as well as the CPMR press release distributed on paper.

Comments & remarks by the group

The perceptional dimension (acquired right to mobility etc) is absent in the CPMR press release on the Santiago seminar. The statement of the Committee of Regions (COR. See page 6 – 7 in the seminar-report) is catching up on this dimension (mobility management, social- and health aspects etc). The COR is also asking for methods for evaluating infrastructure There is a lot to he learnt from the COR approach to the WP and it could serve as a good starting point/reference for modifying our WP response.

There seems to be a need for two kind of transport policies: one for the centres (congestion, mobility) and one for the periphery (accessibility). Think that the group should stress this point in the revised WP-response.

A participant stressed that our WP response should not only focus on the environmental dimension of sustainability.

A participant was questioning the efficiency of the CPMR as a channel for influencing EU transport policy. The CPMR process seems to be characterised by poor transparency (don’t know who is drafting the CPMR position) and a lack of member consultation. Aberdeenshire and the Co-ordinator have sent two different mails/ letters to the CPMR Secretariat in Rennes, requesting more information on the process of adopting the final CPMR WP response. On this background, we have to consider permanently whether the CPMR process is leading the way, or if it is a sidetrack? We should therefore not relay solely on the CPMR-channel, but also be looking for allies in other geographical commission (Cf. item 15/02 - Baltic Sea Commission), as well as maintaining a separate NSC-track.

The representative of the NSC Secretariat advised the group to consult and brief the NSC representative in the CPMR Political Bureau, Gunn Marit Helgesen, before the Bureau’s meeting on 14 May in order to ensure that NSC perspectives and priorities are taken into consideration in CPMR’s final WP-response which is scheduled to be adopted at that meeting.

Decisions/follow-up

• The group should get the full COR-report on the EU Transport White Paper (Freeman)
• The group should develop the position paper and present a revised version according to the aforementioned points from the seminar in Santiago and in relation to points brought up at the meeting (Freeman)
• The NSC representative in the CPMR Political Bureau, Gunn Marit Helgesen, should be consulted and briefed before the Bureau’s meeting on 14 May in order to ensure that NSC perspectives and priorities are taken into consideration in CPMR’s final WP-response (Eide)
• Depending on the outcome of CPMR Political Bureau meeting on 14 May and the CPMR’s response to our letters, the group should consider to write a more official letter to the CPMR signed by the Chairman, Mr. Hallberg, if necessary requesting more transparency and co-determination in the CPMR process. Such a letter should also be referred at the Executive Committee meeting in Norwich on 19 June (Eide, Hallberg, Freeman)
• The group should prepare a resolution on the WP for the NSC General Assembly in Norwich. Deadline: 24 May (Freeman and Eide)

Still pending from last meetings decisions:

• Publish the White paper (WP) response of the group in a relevant European vide journal, to be signed by Mr. Jan Hallberg (Resp: Freeman, Eide, Hallberg)
• Work to enlist a more comprehensive and committed response from the EU Commission and explore how we best should approach the DG for Transport in order to achieve this (Resp: Freeman, Eide, Hallberg)
• Distribute the group’s WP response to the National Transport ministries of the NSC member countries. (Has been carried out in Norway and Sweden).

Responsibles: UK: Dennis Freeman, Germany: Hans Jurgen Hett, Denmark: Lars Dagnæs, Sweden: Maria Larsson, Belgium: Wim Stubbe: Holland: Toine Jansen Norway: Jon Halvard Eide

13/02: Co-operation between the NSC Thematic groups,

Background
This item was first introduced at the meeting in Aberdeenshire in January. The themes/issues of the NSC thematic groups are more of less interlinked and the groups share many of the same problems and challenges. The reason for introducing this item on the agenda is therefore to further and more systematically explore the scope of common interest and potential for co-operation between the groups – assuming that this could benefit the work of all the groups. The Co-ordinator produced a paper on this item for the last meeting. The paper and the discussion of this issue in Aberdeenshire was also meant to give some input of relevance to the NSC Executive Committee seminar in Groeningen on 28 February for all chairs, vice-chairs and co-ordinators of the NSC thematic groups (the Co-ordinators paper was actually used as a background paper for that seminar).

It is also relevant to relate this item to the decision to develop the issue of Rural development within the NSC (see below). This is a broad and composed issue cutting across the remits of all the NSC groups.

A representative of the NSC Secretariat informed that the Chairs, Vice-chairs and Co-ordinators of the other groups have expressed their interest to hold more joint thematic seminars like the one in Groeningen, and if feasible even introduce joint seminars as a regular feature in conjunction with each Executive Committee meeting.

The group found it useful to further explore the potential for co-operation with other NSC groups. This idea was actually introduced in the group 3 years ago - leading to co-operation with the Environment group on the issue of sustainable transport. However when pursuing the inter-group track, the group should take care not to loose its identity. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between common & cross-disciplinary themes on the one hand, and the more transport-specific issues on the other.

Except for the Environment group, the group found the thematic overlap to be greatest in relation to the Business Development group. It was therefore assumed natural to explore the potential with this group first. Business-related overlaps exist within the field of ICT, Sea transport and ports. It was claimed that the lack of business competence is a major problem within short sea shipping. It was also suggested that the group should consider how to include the business perspective in the sustainability work (Cf. economical dimension).

Rural development project
A representative of the NSC Secretariat gave an update on the Rural development project. The issue was first put on the agenda during the Environment group Conference in Varberg last October and the Executive Committee later decided that the issue of rural development should be developed as an Interreg 3B- project, rather than as a new thematic group. It is foreseen that that the rural development project will focus on 4-5 sub-themes. Viborg County has offered to take the lead partner role and has assigned an officer to take care of the task. It will be proposed to form a structure for the project consisting of one partner from each NSC country. Behind these partners there will be established national networks where all interested regions can participate. The thematic groups by the Co-ordinators will be informed about the work. The September deadline has been set as a target date for an Interreg-application.

Decision/follow-up

• The Co-ordinator should write to the Business Development Group and express our interest in exploring the potential for co-operation with them - asking them to state their interest in exploring co-operation with our group.
• The members are encouraged to present input to the Rural Development project through the Co-ordinator, alternatively through the partner group or national networks.

14/02: General NSC information
Karen G. Somerset and Henrik Jensen from the NSC Secretariat in Viborg informed.

NSC strategy document
The NSC strategy document – From Vision to action – has been finalised and will be circulated at the General Assembly in Norfolk in June.

The Executive Committee has requested the member regions (outside UK and Scotland) to translate the document into their native language.

5th North Sea Conference in Bergen, 19-21 March
Representatives of the Executive Committee, the Secretariat and the Environment group attended the conference on behalf of the NSC.

Vice President Gunn Marit Helgesen presented the main points of the NSC paper, including the issues of Fisheries Partnership and clean fishing. Sweden has agreed to host the North Sea Conference in 2006. The NSC will continue to have the status of observer.

NSC General Assembly in Norfolk 18 – 21 June
The programme has been sent out. The registration deadline is 30 April. The main theme will be "Cultural Tourism in the North Sea". Possible that transport could be the main theme at the next General Assembly (but will have to be promoted in competition with other themes!).

There will be an Interreg Directoria on Wednesday 19 June which is restricted to 200 pers. Interested people will therefore have to register soon.

Newsletter
A new NSC newsletter will be published in May

Interreg 3b
Decision on the first application round will be made by the Steering Committee at a meeting in Copenhagen on 29-30 April. Henrik from the NSC Secretariat will attend the meeting as an observer. 15 of 22 proposals have past the eligibility test. Latest: 7 proposals were not considered due to formal flaws. 7 of the 15 eligible proposals were approved, 8 were refused. It can be mentioned that the Northern Maritime Corridor project was approved, as well as the NSC Fisheries Partnership.

15/02: Northern dimension and the Baltic Sea Commission (BSC) – scope for extended co-operation BSC-NSC?
The Co-ordinator made an introduction to this item, explaining why it had been put on the agenda. He also gave a brief on the Baltic Sea region(BSR) and the Baltic Sea Commission on the basis of a paper distributed to the attending members inbeforehand.

Background
It is the first time this issue appears as a separate item on the Transport & Communications group agenda. The reason for introducing this item on the agenda is a wish to explore the potential of closer co-operation with the BSC within the framework of the Northern Dimension and the CPMR. Such co-operation could serve to strengthen the Northern dimension of the CPMR and thus the position of the North Sea Region.

On the Baltic Sea (BS) region
The BSR is regarded to have a strong economical potential. There are few places where the potential is so large for trade and interaction as in a deregulated BS. A further deregulation of the economies of the Eastern part of the BSR and increasing internal integration, will together with a future EU membership on the part of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia increase the demand for communication facilities and services. Sea links will be of special importance in this picture. The current accessibility in the BSR is characterised by disparities between the German BSR, Denmark, Western and Central Poland on the one side and other regions on the other. Historically the Iron curtain has created national oriented north-south links within each country, the east-west connections are poorer developed and need to be improved.

About the Baltic Sea Commission (BSC)

• Founded in 1996
• 1 of 7 geographical commission in the CPMR
• 28 member regions from all Baltic countries except for Poland and Russia (looking forward to members from those countries in the near future), of which only one region is non-maritime
• Vestra Gøtaland and Aarhus are members of both the BSC and the NSC. Nordland is an observer to both Commissions
• President: Anders Gustav, Councillor from Stockholm
• Secretariat located in Kotka, Finland,
• Ex Secretary: Jaakko Mikkola, Ass Ex Secretary: Pia Hurtta

Spatial Development Group (SDG)
The SDG is the equivalent of the NSC Transport & Communications group. The group was founded in 1999. About 12 – 16 persons have been attending the last meetings of the SDG – coming from Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Norway. The remit of the SDG seems to be wider than the NSC Transport group, including in addition to transport, the issues of spatial development (polycentrism), economic development, energy, governance and education. This could however change with the establishment of more specialised thematic groups after the NSC-model.

Northern Dimension (ND) Action Plan

Jan Hallberg made a presentation of the ND Action Plan (full slide presentation can be found at the NSC web page). Jan Hallberg represented the NSC in the ND Intercom group and his role was to introduce the NSC perspective

Finland initiated the concept of ND in 1997. ND is meant to be a "tool" to provide added value through reinforced co-ordination, but was however not supposed to receive any new funding. The ND area covers Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, and parts of Russia, Bela Russia, Poland, Germany, and Denmark. The European Council in Helsinki 1999 invited the EU Commission to make an action plan for the ND area which was adopted in June 2000. A specific Action Plan has been worked out for the CPMR-members within the ND. The BSC plays a leading role in the implementation of the Action Plan. The CPMR adopted the Action plan at the General Assembly in 2001.

The maritime aspect and EU enlargement are the most prominent features of the BSC- and NSC area. Transport and communications are among the areas expected to have among the biggest added value potential. 13 projects are proposed to be realised within the CPMR-area of the ND, of which two are related to Transport and communications (Short Sea Shipping and ICT). All projects are cross border to be implemented on a regional level.

Discussion - is the Baltic dimension worth pursuing?

The following features of the BSR and its relation to the NS-area were highlighted in this respect:

-Potential for economic growth
-Part of first wave of EU enlargement
-Increasing demand for transport & communications facilities/services
-East-west connections need to be improved (The North Sea is in the West).
-Sea links are of special importance in the area
-Transport and communications are expected to have among the biggest added value potential
-Common institutional frameworks with the NSC (CPMR and ND Intercom group)
-Overlapping membership (Vestra Gøtaland and Aarhus)
-Per Strømhaug from Nordland is attending meetings in both groups
-BSC is a young organisation looking for its final form (not fixed in old structures)

The group in general expressed a positive attitude to further explore the co-operation potential with the BSC. It was pointed to the existence of common features, interests and platforms (Cf. points above) and assumed that such a co-operation could strengthen our position towards the EU, as well as within the CPMR. It was also suggested that we should consider using the Interreg 3C- programme (networking, exchange of experience & knowledge) as a possible framework for the co-operation.

Potential areas of co-operation

The co-operation with the BSC should be limited to areas where a clear common interest exists, such as:

-Short Sea Shipping
-Harbours
-EU transport policy, White Paper
-ICT
-Regional air links
-Sustainable transport?

Level and forms of co-operation

The group should not enter into a too extensive and resource-demanding form of co-operation. We should also acknowledge the differences in institutional arrangements and working patterns.

The following level & forms of co-operation were assumed to be appropriate for the moment:

-Mutual exchange of information like terms of reference, action plan, meeting minutes, project ideas, seminar- and conference reports, policy position papers (Cf. White Paper)
-Mutual "observership" at group meetings, seminar/conferences
-Informal consultations and possible co-ordination of positions before meetings in the CPMR Intercommission Transport group. This group could naturally serve as a practical framework for contact with the BSC, as long as Mr. Eide and Mr. Freeman are attending those meetings.

Decision/follow-up:

• The Co-ordinator informs his counterpart in the BSC – SDG of the discussion and decisions from this meeting, and mails over relevant info material as specified above. At the same time he should ask to be included in the regular mailings of the SDG.
• Group members from regions which are also members of the BSC (for the moment Vestra Gøtaland and Aarhus) should establish a contact with the person(s) in their regions regularly attending meetings in the SDG – or other relevant events – in order to get a first hand impression about the activity.
• Per Strømhaug from Nordland acts as a liaison to the SDG as he is meeting regularly in both groups
• The Co-ordinator and Dennis Freeman should consult the BSC after the CPMR Political Bureau meeting 14 May and before the next meeting in the CPMR Intercom Transport group on 1 July in order to exchange views and co-ordinate positions in the relation to the CPMR position paper on the Transport White paper.

16/02: Preparation of October-meeting in Schleswig & Holstein 31.10 - 1.11.02

The next meeting will take place in Heide, Schleswig & Holstein region, about 1 hrs drive from Hamburg, 3 hrs from Denmark. The meeting will as usual start at lunch day 1 and end at lunch day 2. Day 1 will consist of external presentations (for themes see below) and possibly excursions. The ordinary business items will be handled on day 2 (the agenda for day 2 can to a large extent be deducted from the "decision/follow-up" sections of these minutes).

Special themes: ICT (see below) + business aspects of transport

Discussion on how the group should approach and work with ICT

A question was asked whether group have the necessary competence & capacity to handle the ICT aspects in full width. It was argued that we should approach the theme with an open mind and use the next meeting to define how we should work with ICT area.

It was suggested that the group should concentrate on ICT as an alternative to physical transport (teleworking, e-trade, distant education etc), with a potential to reduce the travel need. However, the effect of ICT on transport need/volumes is unclear, as ICT in certain circumstances also can lead to increased travel needs/volumes. ICT as a means of making transport more efficient and sustainable is another relevant angle.

The next meeting should also explore how we can operationalise the business related ICT items in the Terms of reference – hopefully together with the Co-ordinator of the Business Development Group.

Business Development
We should ask the BDG to set up a paper to the next meeting on how they regard the co-operation potential with our group – taking the paper on Cross co-operation (Cf. item 13/02) as a point of departure. ICT and Short Sea Shipping seem to be the most relevant angles with regard to the business side.

Decisions/follow-up

• Lars Dagnæs has confirmed his willingness to prepare the meeting and joins the organising host, Hans Jurgen Hett and the Co-ordinator in this task.

Mr. Dagnæs and Mr. Hett are requested to find or to have prepared a relevant background paper/material on ICT, to be mailed out before the meeting.

• The Co-ordinator invites his counterpart in the BDG to attend the meeting
• Tommy Madsen asks Svend Tøfting to consider if/how the Ertico-project Ertico.com on the application of new ICT (Cf. 08/02) can be used as a resource for the discussion of ICT at the next meeting
• Brian Sørensen invites Mr Flemming W. Brandt to the meeting as he is known to be a capacity on the business aspects of SSS (Cf. his best practice presentation at the Goods section of the Aarhus conference 19 April)

9) Any other business

No items

Brian Sørensen was complimented for his hospitality in hosting the meeting and the Conference on Sustainable transport 18-19 April.