REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) N° 3118/93 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (CABOTAGE) - 2ND REPORT

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) N° 3118/93 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (CABOTAGE)

2ND REPORT

0. Introduction

0.1. This Report is a sequel to COM(1998) 47 final of 4.2.98 which covered the use of cabotage authorizations up to the end of 1995. This 2nd Report extends the analysis up to the end of June 1998 when, under Article 12.2 of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 [1], quantitative restrictions on cabotage were lifted. (Note quantitative restrictions on intra-Benelux cabotage had been previously lifted in 1992).

[1] OJ L 279 of 12.11.1993, p. 1.

0.2. The geographical scope of the cabotage regime remains that of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the abolition of quantitative restrictions applies to the EEA as a whole. Finally it is recalled that Austria, which was not included in the EEA arrangements in July 1994, only joined the cabotage regime in January 1997 as a result of Protocol N° 9 to the Accession Treaty [2] that brought Austria into the Community.

[2] OJ C 241 of 29.8.1994, p. 361.

0.3. This Report has five sections. The first section discusses the data supplied under the Cabotage Regulations. The second section is devoted to an analysis of the data supplied under the Cabotage Regulations between July 1990 and June 1998. The third section gives preliminary comments on cabotage data from the road transport sample surveys. The fourth section draws some conclusions. Finally the fifth section outlines recommendations for future monitoring of cabotage.

0.4. This Report is prepared by virtue of Article 11 of Regulation 3118/93, which requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the application of this Regulation every two years. For the sake of completeness and comparability it starts from the introduction of cabotage (under Council Regulation (EEC) N° 4058/89) [3] at the beginning of July 1990 to the abolition of quantitative restrictions at the end of June 1998. As the previous report, COM(1998) 47, this Report covers the EEA area; a copy will again be sent for information to the EEA Council.

[3] OJ L 390 of 30.12.1989, p. 1.

1. Data supplied under the Cabotage Regulations

1.1. Regulation 4058/89 and Regulation 3118/93 (until the end of June 1998) prescribed that record books should accompany cabotage authorizations. These record books provided the data for the compilation of statistics on the use of cabotage authorizations on a 100% basis. The abolition of the authorizations resulted in the abolition of the associated record books. However the Council clearly indicated in paragraph 2 of Article 12.3 of Regulation 3118/93 that monitoring of cabotage should be continued after the abolition of authorizations at the end of June 1998; hence a new form of data collection was required after June 1998. Fortunately this need arose at the same time as the review of the "Road Statistics Directive" (Council Directive 78/546/EEC of 12 June 1978 [4] as modified by Council Directive 89/462/EEC of 18 July 1989 [5]) was drawing to a close. This review lead to the adoption, in the form of a regulation, of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1172/98 of 25 May 1998 [6] which extended, inter alia, the types of journey to be covered in the sample surveys so as to include cabotage. More details of the cabotage data collected under the "road transport sample surveys" are given in Section 3.

[4] OJ L 168 of 26.6.1978, p. 29.

[5] OJ L 226 of 3.8.1989, p. 8.

[6] OJ L 163 of 6.6.1998, p. 1.

1.2. Under the various Community instruments, each Reporting State has to supply data to the Commission on "tonnes" and "tonne-kilometres" relating to cabotage movements performed by their own hauliers on a quarterly basis with separate data for each (other) partner EEA State where cabotage could be carried out.

1.3. As in the previous report, COM(1998) 47, quarterly data has been aggregated on a half-year basis and the analysis is restricted to "tonne-kilometres" (tkm). Further, to facilitate comparisons with tables and matrices in the previous report, the same order of States has been retained in this Report. This order is "Germany (D), France (F), Italy (I), Netherlands (NL), Belgium (B), Luxembourg (L), United Kingdom (UK), Ireland (IRL), Denmark (DK), Greece (GR), Spain (E), Portugal (P), Iceland (IS), Norway (N), Finland (FIN), Sweden (S), Liechtenstein (FL), Austria (A)".

1.4. For convenience, the previous report distinguished 2 periods, "1st period" (July 1990 to June 1994) and "2nd period" (July 1994 to December 1995) when the cabotage regime was extended to EEA (except Austria). It is useful in this Report, to further define "3rd period" as "January 1996 to June 1998" and "whole period" as "July 1990 to June 1998" so as to succinctly describe developments over time.

1.5. The data supplied by the Reporting States for the 3rd period is complete except as follows:

Spain: no data supplied;

France: 1st half 1998.

To reduce difficulties in the interpretation of the results, the missing data has been estimated. Estimated values for Reporting States are generally shown in the tables in italics. This rule is not followed in the large matrices given in Tables 7 and 8.

1.6. This Report also makes use of tkm data on national and international transport from the "road transport sample surveys" supplemented by other sources. This data is needed in order to calculate:

(a) "penetration rates", where "cabotage in a State" is expressed as a % of the "national transport in the same State" , and,

(b) "activity rates" , where "cabotage by hauliers of a Reporting State" is expressed as a % of "international transport by hauliers of the same State" (only hauliers with an international licence are allowed to undertake cabotage).

1.7. In contrast to the previous report, however, this Report interprets national (and international) transport to cover "own account" hauliers in addition to "hire or reward" hauliers. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Commission Regulation (EC) N° 792/94 of 8 April 1994 [7] extended the cabotage regime to "own account" hauliers. Secondly, recent work on producing more consistent time series of data for national (and international) transport has concentrated on "own account + hire or reward" and not on the split between "own account" and "hire or reward".

[7] OJL 92 of 9.4.1994, p. 13.

2. Analysis of the data supplied under the Cabotage Regulations between July 1990 and June 1998

2.1. From Table 5 it can be seen that cabotage reported under cabotage authorizations was 10.5 billion tkm during the whole period (from July 1990 to June 1998). However, national transport for those States where cabotage was authorised at the time amounted to 6400 billion tkm during the same period; consequently cabotage only represented, on average, a penetration rate of 0.164% (or 1 part in 600) in national transport during the whole period (see Tables 5 and 6). International transport (again in tkm) over the whole period was approximately one quarter of national transport; hence cabotage corresponded to, on average, 0.66% (or 1 part in 150) of the activity of international hauliers during the whole period.

2.2. Due mainly to the rapid increase in the number of cabotage authorizations (from 15298 for "July 1990 to June 1991" to 85098 in 1997), cabotage increased 6-fold from 176 million (mio) tkm in 2nd half 1990 (352 mio tkm on an annual basis), to 2224 mio tkm in 1997 (see Table 3).

2.3. Despite a further 30% increase in the number of cabotage authorizations available in 1st half 1998 (as compared to either half year in 1997) a small absolute decline to 1010 mio tkm was reported in 1st half 1998 (2020 mio tkm on an annual basis). This is considered to be due to fairly substantial under-reporting in this half year, probably due to the fact that hauliers knew that they would not have to justify their need for authorizations for the following quarters to their authorities (for further comments on under-reporting see § 3.7 - 3.9).

2.4. As national transport only grew by some 20% from 1990 to 1998, Table 6 shows that the average penetration rate of cabotage in national markets increased 5-fold from 0.05% in 2nd half 1990 to 0.25% in 1997. The apparent decline to 0.22% in 1st half 1998 is considered to be due to under-reporting (see also § 3.7 - 3.9). Similarly, while cabotage corresponded to about 0.2% of the activity of international hauliers in 2nd half of 1990, it rose to about 1% in 1997.

2.5. The average use of a (2-month) cabotage authorization is given in Table 4. It was 30800 tkm over the whole period (July 1990 to June 1998). The average use rose rapidly from 23000 tkm (2nd half 1990) to 47500 tkm (1993) but then declined steadily to 26100 tkm (1997) with an apparent sharp further fall to 18200 tkm (1st half 1998). Again the decline in average use is thought to be partially due to under-reporting (see again § 3.7 - 3.9).

2.6. The hauliers from the Benelux States have been the most active in the cabotage market; Table 3 shows that 58.7% of all cabotage was done by Benelux hauliers (indeed 31.2% was done just by Dutch hauliers) despite the Benelux collectively having only 22.5% of the cabotage authorizations (see Table 2). Consequently, Table 4 shows that, over the whole period, hauliers from each of the 3 Benelux States had an average use between 70200 and 86900 tkm per authorization compared to 16400 tkm per authorization for non-Benelux hauliers.

2.7. Other "active" hauliers in the cabotage market were from Sweden (5.0% of all cabotage tkm, with 3.7% of all cabotage authorizations, and average use of 42000 tkm), France (12.7%, 10.6% and 36700 tkm respectively) and Denmark (6.7%, 7.6% and 27300 tkm respectively).

2.8. German, Italian and United Kingdom hauliers were not very active in the cabotage markets achieving only 5.3%, 3.1% and 3.0% respectively of the market; this was despite these States being allocated a relatively large number of authorizations (12.8%, 10.6% and 6.7% respectively). Consequently their average use per authorization was only 12600, 9100 and 14000 tkm respectively.

2.9 Only 2% of the cabotage was carried out by hauliers from the "low labour cost" States (Greece, Spain, Portugal) despite the fact that hauliers from these 3 States were allocated 16.2% of the cabotage authorizations. Average use of authorizations by Greek, Spanish and Portuguese hauliers were thus only 20, 5500 (estimate) and 3700 tkm respectively. Fears that hauliers from "low labour cost" States would provide "unfair" competition for hauliers in "high labour cost" States thus continued to be unfounded.

2.10 Table 5 shows that 68.3% of all cabotage was carried out in Germany, the most popular "Partner State", the proportion having risen from 64% (1st period) to 73% (2nd period) but then declined to 69% (3rd period). Table 6 shows that the penetration rate of cabotage in the German national market has risen from 0.12% (2nd half 1990) to 0.75% in 1997 (but further see § 3.7 - 3.9). As German hauliers only performed 5.3% of all the cabotage carried out, it is evident that Germany has a very substantial negative balance as far as cabotage is concerned.

2.11. While 12.6% of cabotage was carried out in France, the 2nd most popular "Partner State", cabotage penetration was 0.21% in the French national market in 1997. Further, as French hauliers performed 12.7% of all cabotage, there was an almost exactly "zero" balance of cabotage as far as France is concerned.

2.12. The 3rd most popular "Partner State" was Italy where 6.9% of all cabotage was performed. As Italian hauliers themselves were rather inactive (performing only 3.1% of all cabotage), Italy had a negative balance on cabotage.

2.13. The only other States with apparent negative balances on cabotage were Spain, Greece and Norway. However, in the case of Spain, some caution is needed since data for Spanish hauliers has had to be estimated from 1996 onwards and, even just prior to that, there were indications of under-reporting. In the case of Greece, the negative balance was due to the fact that Greek hauliers did not report doing any cabotage after 1991. In the case of Norway, although twice as much cabotage has been done in Norway than by Norwegian hauliers, the penetration rate in Norway was only 0.25% in 1st half 1998.

2.14. Table 7 shows the amount of cabotage carried out by hauliers from each Reporting State (the rows of the matrix) in each Partner State (the columns of the matrix) during the 3rd period (January 1996 to June 1998). Similarly Table 8 gives the corresponding matrix for the whole (8 year) period (July 1990 to June 1998). Table 9 ranks the leading "caboteurs" (cabotage by hauliers from a specific Reporting State in a specific Partner State) for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and whole periods in terms of the ranked order for the whole period (July 1990 to June 1998).

2.15. The 1st ranked "caboteurs" were Dutch hauliers in Germany. They performed 2814 out of 10517 mio tkm over the whole period of 8 years, i.e. 27% of all cabotage (i.e by all hauliers in all States). "Dutch hauliers in Germany" held the 1st rank in all 3 periods accounting for 19%, 31% and 29% of all cabotage in the 3 periods respectively.

2.16. Similarly, the 2nd ranked "caboteurs" were Belgian hauliers in Germany, accounting for 10% of all cabotage (1055 out of 10517 mio tkm). While "Belgian hauliers in Germany" held the 2nd rank in the 1st and 2nd periods (accounting for 14% and 11% respectively) they accounted for only 7% in the 3rd period, being overtaken by "Luxembourg hauliers in Germany" (with 9%) and "Belgian hauliers in France" (with 8%).

2.17. Other noteworthy "caboteurs" in the 3rd period were "Swedish hauliers in Germany" and "French hauliers in Germany" (each about 6.5%).

3. Preliminary comments on cabotage data from the road transport sample surveys

3.1. The proposal to include cabotage in the Road Statistics Directive (78/546) was made by the Commission in 1987, COM(87) 548 final of 20 November 1987, which explicitly proposed to include cabotage in the types of journey (listed in Article 1 of the Directive) that should be covered by (sample) surveys under the Directive. The Council, however, in adopting Directive 89/462 (which modified 78/546), specifically excluded cabotage on the grounds that it was still, at that date, "illegal".

3.2. Drafts for a second modification of the Road Statistics Directive were in preparation for a long time and it was not until 25 May 1998 that the Council formally adopted a replacement for the Road Statistics Directive in the form of a Regulation (1172/98). Even then, its final adoption was accelerated by the imminent cessation of data on cabotage from the Cabotage Regulation (3118/93).

3.3. As is customary, Member States were given a period to adjust their surveys so as to include, inter alia, cabotage; consequently the new Regulation (1172/98) only applies to data collected from 1.1.1999 onwards. The Council was conscious of the gap that would arise for cabotage data between the end of the Cabotage Regulation (i.e. 30.6.1998) and the formal start of the Road Statistics Regulation (i.e. 1.1.1999). The Council therefore asked Member States to provide the Commission, if possible, with cabotage data from their road transport sample surveys for the missing period, i.e. 2nd half 1998. Six States (five Member States and Norway) have, so far, responded to this request. They had already started to collect data on cabotage in their sample surveys (as stated above, the draft of the Road Statistics Regulation had been in preparation for a long time).

3.4. The Commission's services were also conscious that a change in the source of data on cabotage (July 1998) might be "confounded" with the effects of the abolition of quantitative restrictions on cabotage (also July 1998). The Commission's services therefore asked States to provide, where possible, data on cabotage from the sample surveys for the period prior to 2nd half 1998; this would enable comparisons to be made between the two sources of cabotage data for the same period. In making such comparisons, it is necessary to exclude intra-Benelux cabotage since intra-Benelux cabotage was freed from quantitative restrictions in 1992 (only an insignificant amount was recorded in the cabotage data collected under the cabotage regulation after 1992).

3.5. In consequence, the Commission's services have already received fairly extensive data from some Member States and Norway on cabotage from the sample surveys prior to 1999. However, as statistical experts from the States have pointed out, the sample surveys generally only cover about 1% of all journeys carried out; and, of these journeys, only a very small proportion are cabotage. Consequently, as this cabotage data had not, generally, been collected with a view to its publication at a fine level of detail, it had not been subjected to the data quality controls normally carried out prior to publication. To accommodate these justified warnings from the statistical experts, this Report combines the quarterly data on cabotage from the sample surveys both "over time" and "over Reporting States"; the conclusions drawn from this "aggregated data" should thus be sufficiently reliable.

3.6 An examination of the data received so far from the road transport sample surveys indicates that:

There was no "explosion" of cabotage when quantitative restrictions were abolished in July 1998. This provisional conclusion is based on data from 5 States (France, Netherlands (excluding intra-Benelux), United Kingdom, Norway and Finland). These are the only States that have so far provided data from sample surveys for both 1st half and 2nd half 1998. This data shows only a 2% increase in cabotage tkm after quantitative restrictions were abolished in July 1998. It should be noted that these 5 States accounted for 45% of the cabotage carried out under the Cabotage Regulation in 1st half 1998.

3.7 A comparison of the data from the Cabotage Regulation with that received so far from the sample surveys indicates that:

(i) There was, generally, progressive under-reporting in the Cabotage Regulation. The adjustment factor has been estimated as 1.1 for 1996, 1.4 for 1997 and 1.8 for 1st half 1998. The adjustment factor for 1997 is based upon data for 8 States (France, Belgium and Netherlands (both excluding intra-Benelux), United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Sweden and Austria); these states accounted for 80% of the cabotage carried out under the Cabotage Regulation in 1997. It should therefore be a fairly reliable adjustment when it comes to combining the two series of data on cabotage that will be required in the future when only data from the sample surveys will be available. The adjustment factor for 1st half 1998 is only based, so far, on 4 States (Netherlands (excluding intra-Benelux), United Kingdom, Norway and Finland). These 4 States accounted for only 33% of the cabotage carried out under the Cabotage Regulation in 1st half 1998, so that this factor must be regarded as provisional. The adjustment factor for 1996 has been set so as to provide a smooth evolution of cabotage carried out under the Cabotage Regulation. It is assumed that no adjustment is required prior to 1996. Although the adjustment factors are themselves imprecise, this does not affect the broad conclusions given in § 3.8 and §3.9 below.

(ii) There is, currently, considerable under-reporting of cabotage in the sample surveys for a few States, mainly in Scandanavia.

3.8. Applying the provisional adjustment factors given in §3.7 (i) to the main results given in Section 2 of this Report thus yields amended figures as follows:

(i) cabotage carried out by hauliers from all States:

- in 1996: 2215 mio tkm (2014 x 1.1);

- in 1997: 3114 mio tkm (2224 x 1.4);

- in 1st half 1998: 1818 mio tkm (1010 x 1.8), 3636 mio tkm on an annual basis.

(ii) cabotage accounted for about 0.35% (0.25% x 1.4) of national markets in the EEA area as a whole in 1997, and (provisionally) about 0.40% (0.22 x 1.8) in 1st half 1998.

(iii) cabotage in Germany accounted for:

- in 1996: 1560 mio tkm (1418 x 1.1), 0.8% of the German national market;

- in 1997: 2122 mio tkm (1516 x 1.4), 1.0% of the German national market;

- in 1st half 1998: 1240 mio tkm (688 x 1.8), (provisionally) 1.2% of the German national market.

3.9. Applying a similar adjustment, cabotage corresponded to some 1.4% (1.0% x 1.4) of the activity of international hauliers in 1997.

3.10. The provisional nature of the adjustments means that it would be imprudent, at this stage, to carry through the adjustments to other more detailed results of Section 2.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Cabotage operations grew considerably during the 8 years from July 1990 to June 1998. However, even in 1997, tkm performed in national transport (i.e. transport within a State by resident hauliers) was 300 times larger than cabotage. Additionally, tkm performed in international transport was 70 times larger than cabotage.

4.2 68% of all cabotage was carried out in Germany, but even, in 1997, German national transport was still 100 times larger than cabotage carried out in Germany.

4.3. Provisional results from the sample surveys indicate that there was no "explosion" in cabotage in the 2nd half 1998 after quantitative restrictions were lifted.

4.4. Efficient hauliers can still find opportunities to carry out cabotage in other States; in the EEA there is still little evidence to suggest that hauliers with low labour costs necessarily provide "unfair competition" to hauliers with high labour costs.

5. Recommendations for future monitoring of cabotage

The Commission does not recommend, at this stage, any additional data collection exercises to be undertaken for monitoring of cabotage. However, States should use sampling rates (and sampling methods) in their implementation of Statistics Regulation 1172/98 that will be sufficient to provide reliable data on cabotage on an annual basis (and preferably on a half-yearly basis). This would ensure adequate monitoring of cabotage as required under 2nd paragraph of Article 12.3 of the Cabotage Regulation 3118/93.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State, by half year in 3rd period (January 1996 to June 1998).

Table 2: Number of (2-month) cabotage authorizations allocated to each Reporting State, by calendar year.

Table 3: Cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State, by calendar year.

Table 4: Average use of (2-month) cabotage authorizations for each Reporting State, by calendar year.

Table 5: Cabotage in each Partner State and National transport, by calendar year.

Table 6: Penetration rate (cabotage in each Partner State/National transport) and Relative penetration rate, by calendar year.

Table 7: Matrix showing cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State in each Partner State for 3rd period (January 1996 to June 1998).

Table 8: Matrix showing cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State in each Partner State for whole period (July 1990 to June 1998).

Table 9: Leading "caboteurs" (cabotage by hauliers from a Reporting State in a Partner State) in 1st period (July 1990 to June 1994), 2nd period (July 1994 to December 1995), 3rd period (January 1996 to June 1998) and whole period (July 1990 to June 1998).

Table 1

Cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State by half year in 3rd period

Units: tkm (1000's)

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 2

Number of (2-month) cabotage authorizations allocated to each Reporting State

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 3

Cabotage by hauliers from each Reporting State

Units: tkm (1000's)

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 4

Average use of (2-month) cabotage authorizations for each Reporting State

Units: tkm (1000's)

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 5

Cabotage in each Partner State Units: tkm (1000's)

>TABLE POSITION>

National transport Units: tkm (1000 million's)

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 6

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 7

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 8

>TABLE POSITION>

Table 9

>TABLE POSITION>