Green Corridors Network

In order to realize transborder infrastructure Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden have formed the European Research Area-Network (ERA-NET TRANSPORT). Phase one consisted mainly of finding EU funding for cooperation between national programme owners, for instance in common calls and umbrella programmes. Five success stories were the result. Money, mandate and motivation proved vital. And the overall feeling is that the time is ripe for green corridors.

So on to phase two, which consists of:

• the interlinkage between existing (at first) and new (in the medium to long term) national policies and its programmes and/or instruments, to achieve medium and long-term structural collaboration in transport research;
• achieving consensus at the decision making level towards bigger transnational cooperative initiatives;
• intensify cooperation, including research, development and demonstration funding.

More substantial
More funding, consensus, more research... this does not by a long shot sound like an active implementation phase. When will we see the first green corridor?

Although no date is set, there is a more substantial aim, as Heimo Aichmaier of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology explained during the Green Corridors Network session at the recent Connecting Clean Mobility (CCM) conference in Arnhem, the Netherlands. The aim is to start with one green corridor, which would in time, like an oil stain, spread to other trans-European motorways. The amount of green cars and the availability of green fuels will have to grow hand in hand.

Impossibility
Differences in programme structures per country is a serious problem to the Green Corridors project. International cooperation is hampered by the virtual impossibility to draft a coordinated call that meets the requirements of all participating countries.

These requirements are sometimes needlessly stalling – like the case in which only proposals in German were accepted, which made things very difficult for the French partner. Other times they are downright contradictory. Timing of calls within the year, for example: in one country the funding decision is made at the end of the year, after a one-step procedure, whereas in the cooperating country early in the year, after a pre-proposal, a first decision is made.

This calls for harmonisation and, at the very least, clear guidelines. Furthermore, amongst other things, open calls as accepted in Germany, instead of fixed deadlines like in Austria, would be more than welcome.

Ongoing
The implementation phase has its problems as well. As to which kind of fuel should be chosen, the debate is ongoing. At the CCM conference cases were made by proponents of hydrogen, CNG/biogas and biodiesel alike. What if hydrogen ‘wins’ in, say, Germany and biogas in Austria?

Lighthouse
However, it was a good sign for the Green Corridors Network when during the CCM session a proclaimed opponent confessed to having come around. Willy Raimund, of the Austrian Energy Agency, had prepared a presentation full of criticism, but ended up applauding the project.

He couldn’t resist stressing that, yes, we should still think about how to avoid empty freight runs and, no, railway and waterway transport should not be forgotten. But all in all, Raimund was convinced that green corridors are needed for several reasons. First of all, because the existing focus on road transport he perceives, won’t change overnight. Secondly – a well-known argument – because of high oil prices. And last but not least, as a starting point and ‘lighthouse project’.

Bold stand
One could easily maintain that by now there are enough starting points and lighthouses. The Green Corridors Network is not an isolated, loose ended initiative; to claim that, would be selling it short. It could be a structural improvement and a bold stand in the chicken or egg dilemma of whether to start with infrastructure (filling stations) or alternatively fuelled vehicles. But its proponents need to seize the momentum.