Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail transport statistics"
Date: 2001-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU statistics, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, exchange of information, rail transport, statistical method

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/63

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on rail transport statistics’

(2001/C 221/08)

On 21 March 2001 the Council decided, under Article 285 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, to consult the Economic and Social Committee on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 May 2001. The rapporteur was
Mr Donnelly.

At its 382nd plenary session held on 30/31 May 2001 (meeting of 30 May) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 112 votes for with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This proposal was presented by the Commission in
order to be able to assess the effects of Community measures
in the rail transport sector, and to provide a basis for the
preparation of new measures. The Commission thinks it
important to have Community statistical data which can be
used to follow developments in the rail sector.

1.2.
In particular, the idea here is to systematically map out
harmonised data on the safety of rail transport. Up to now
such data have been lacking in the available rail transport
statistics. The draft regulation is intended to change this.

1.3.
It is true that rail transport statistics have been collected
since as far back as 1980, under Directive 80/1177/EEC, but
this directive has the following shortcomings:

— it covers only freight transport;

— it confines itself to a list of railway administrations for
which data are to be compiled: partly as a result of the
restructuring of the rail industry which has divided it into
infrastructure managers and train operators, this list is
now out of date;

— the quality of the statistics collected is not good enough;

— the directive contains no provision for its adaptation

through a committee procedure.

1.4.
In addition to the statistics collected by the Member
States under Directive 80/1177/EEC (1), they are expected
under Regulation 1108/70 (2) to provide annual data on the
use of, and expenditure on, infrastructure. Other statistics on
rail transport are collected on a voluntary basis. The Committee
would draw particular attention to the need to ensure privacy
in the collection of statistics.

1.5.
The proposal is presented in the form of a regulation
rather than a directive, since the new legislation is intended to
be directly applicable without having to be transposed into
national law. Of course, the national authorities still have the
option, when collecting the statistics required, of applying
methods which take account of the differing circumstances in
the Member States. Moreover, a statistical regulation has also
been
[Regulation
road
1172/98/EEC (3)]. It entered into force on 1 January 1999.

transport

drawn

for

up

The Committee is of

1.6.
the statistics
collected from all transport sectors must be comparable. This
is all the more necessary as statistics are (will be) collected
from all transport modes.

the view that

2. General comments

2.1.
The regulation provides for a new set of Community
statistics on rail passenger transport. Data are already collected
on freight transport under Directive 80/1177/EEC. The Com-
mission proposes, given the ‘methodological constraints on
collection of rail passenger data’, that a limited quantity of
statistics be collected and that additional statistics be intro-
duced later on.

Because of these shortcomings and the fact that a further
regional breakdown of statistical data is thought
to be
desirable, so that freight and passenger flows can in future be
described on a region-to-region basis throughout the EU, it is
proposed to replace Directive 80/1177/EEC with the present
draft directive.

(1) OJ L 350, 23.12.1980, pp. 23-40, Opinion OJ C 300, 18.11.1980,

p. 3.

(2) OJ L 130, 15.6.1970, pp. 4-14, Opinion OJ C 48, 16.4.1969,

p. 1.

(3) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, pp. 1-12, Opinion OJ C 95, 30.3.1998,

p. 33.

C 221/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

The Committee thinks it worth noting that, depending on the
scope and accuracy of voluntarily reported data, Eurostat will
develop a method to include additional statistics in the
regulation at a later stage.

3.

Specific comments

The Commission maintains that the type of data on
2.2.
traffic flows on the rail network are comparable with those
currently collected on road transport through the five-yearly
E-road censuses coordinated by UnecE. It further states that
the methodology used for collecting rail statistics will differ
from that used in other transport sectors. The Committee does
not see any problem in this.

2.3.
It is clear from the annexes to the draft regulation that
the Member States must collect and send in both annual and
quarterly statistical data on passenger and freight transport —
results and indicators. This seems highly labour-intensive and
therefore likely to give rise to higher costs. The Commission
has not taken up the opportunity in its proposal to grant the
Member States funding over a number of years to compensate
for the likely extra costs. The Committee takes the view that
this should indeed be done, all
the more so since the
aforementioned Regulation 1172/98/EEC includes a financial
contribution from the Community for the first three years of
its implementation.

2.4.
The Committee notes that the Commission proposal
— quite rightly — does not as yet address the collection of
statistics by the applicant countries. The Committee would,
however, draw attention to the need for these countries to be
advised in good time of future obligations.

The Commission maintains that

2.5.
the shortcomings
listed in point 1.3 were the main reason for draft regulation,
but that the statistical data to be collected are also of interest
to those concerned in the Member States since:

— they provide information on the rail transport market;

— railway operators can use the information to engage in

‘benchmarking’;

— the information could be used to obtain funding for
large-scale projects, since banks obtain objective data on
the financial viability of these projects.

3.1.
The Committee can endorse the exclusions from the
scope of the draft regulation which are listed in its Article 2,
since they are of marginal importance for the Community rail
transport market.

The Commission states that the choice between detail-
3.2.
ed or simplified reporting will be made via the procedure laid
down in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999.
This choice will then be binding on the Member States. The
Committee endorses this approach as it ensures the necessary
flexibility.

3.3.
The Commission has chosen the usual NST/R classifi-
cation for goods, while for dangerous goods it has opted for
the usual classification in railway circles, found in the Regu-
lation on international rail transport of dangerous goods (RID).
The Committee can endorse these choices.

The Committee has serious doubts as to whether three
3.4.
years is a suitable period to allow before the Commission
draws up an evaluation. Experience with statistics provides
sufficient grounds for these doubts. In the Committee’s view a
five years, would be more
longer evaluation period, e.g.
appropriate, all the more so since the Commission intends to
present a report after only three years to the European
Parliament and the Council which would include both a quality
assessment and a cost/benefit analysis.

4.

Summary and conclusions

In general

4.1.
the Committee can endorse the Com-
mission’s intention to create an adequate statistical basis for
both passenger and goods transport by rail. The Committee is
particularly pleased to note the Commission’s intention to
include data on safety in the statistics to be collected.

2.6.
The Committee would draw particular attention to the
role that technological development can play in the collection
of data. For instance, the Galileo project could, through the
satellite system, overcome some of
the problems in the
collection of statistics.

The present draft regulation presupposes that the extra
4.2.
costs involved in the collection of the data will be entirely
borne by the Member States. Given the experience with a
similar regulation on collecting statistics for road transport
(Regulation 1172/98) under which funds are made available
by the Community to the Member States for the purpose, the
present proposal seems somewhat curious.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/65

4.3.
The Committee asks the Commission to consider an
extension of the deadline for an evaluation of the regulation
from the proposed three years to five years. The Committee
does not think it realistic to expect a thorough assessment of
the effectiveness and quality of the statistical data collected
after such a short period, or to be able to present a reasoned
report to the European Parliament and the Council.

4.4.
The Committee recommends exploiting all technologi-
cal potentialities for the collection of statistics. It is thinking in
particular of the possibilities opened up by satellite communi-
cations. In addition it attaches great importance to keeping the
applicant countries and Switzerland of future obligations, so
as to further improve the comparability of statistics in the
future.

Brussels, 30 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of
certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending Council Directives
85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC’

(2001/C 221/09)

On 14 February 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Braghin.

At its 382nd plenary session (meeting of 30 May 2001) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 109 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

regards the authorisation of categories of industrial activities
listed in the relevant annex.

1.1.
The proposal in question is intended to promote the
alignment of Community law with Articles 6 and 7 of the
Aarhus Convention covering public participation in environ-
mental decision-making and access to justice in environmental
matters,
thus enabling the Commission to meet its own
international commitments and open the way to ratification
of the Convention by the European Community.

These articles contain provisions on informing and
1.2.
consulting the public before decisions with an environmental
impact are adopted: the proposal mentions a series of amend-
ments to Directive 85/337/EEC (‘the EIA Directive’) on the
impact of certain public
assessment of the environmental
and private projects, and to Directive 96/61/EC (‘the IPPC
Directive’) on integrated pollution prevention and control, as

1.3.
Action at Community level is deemed to be necessary
to ensure that the procedures governing public participation
in the environmental decision-making process are uniform in
all Member States, leaving it to the Member States themselves
to define the practical ways of implementing them.

1.4.
Since all the Member States and the Community have
already signed the Convention, the proposal should not give
rise to additional costs for the Member States apart from
those arising in any case from transposing the Convention’s
provisions into national law. However, there are likely to be
costs connected with the more widespread dissemination of
information, with the organisation and analysis of contri-
butions (envisaged also in the form of opinions) deriving from
public participation, and with possible consultation of the
public through public-opinion surveys and subsequent publi-
cation of the decisions taken.