Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures’ COM(2008) 436 final — 2008/0147 (COD)
Date: 2009-12-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, toll, transport infrastructure, vehicle tax








C_2010255EN.01009201.xml










22.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/92





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures’
COM(2008) 436 final — 2008/0147 (COD)
(2010/C 255/17)
Rapporteur: Mr DANTIN

On 28 August 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

COM(2008) 436 final - 2008/0147 (COD).
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 12 November 2009. The rapporteur was Mr Dantin.
At its 458th plenary session, held on 16 and 17 December 2009 (meeting of 17 December), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 218 votes to 16 with 9 abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations
1.1   The transport sector plays a key role in guaranteeing the mobility and socioeconomic development of the EU. Improvements to the transport infrastructure must respond to the challenges of growth and sustainability.
There is major concern at European level about the effects of climate change, environmental conservation and all those issues relating to health and social wellbeing, in connection with the efficient use of transport.
1.2.1   Here the Committee would point out that Community law currently bars the Member States who wish to do so from internalising the external costs in tolls on transit routes. It notes that one other country which is close to the EU and confronted with comparable difficulties has already put in place such a policy of internalising external costs and of modal shift with potential positive effects under certain conditions from an economic and environmental point of view.
1.3   The Commission has for some time been working to develop mechanisms to help measure and internalise external transport costs. It is involved in a strategy designed to ‘correctly set transport prices so that they better reflect the costs of the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change’ (COM(2008) 436 final/2, Grounds for and objectives of the proposal, point 1.1).
1.4   Although the competitiveness of road freight transport is important in a context of globalising markets, the Committee believes that applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which it endorses, as well as trying to safeguard the public interest, must result in complementary measures aimed at reducing environmental pollution, noise pollution, damage to the countryside, and social costs (e.g. costs incurred by poor health, and indirectly by accidents, congestion and traffic jams), which generate substantial economic costs that are borne by the public at large - and thus by Europe's citizens. In so doing, the EESC can welcome the draft directive but, for the sake of consistency, only on condition that the European Commission takes into account the comments raised by the EESC in its July 2009 opinion on the ‘Strategy for the internalisation of external costs’. (1)

The EESC reiterates its support for Commission efforts to promote co-modality of transport, including multimodal transport.
Bearing in mind the fact that territorial, economic and social cohesion is one of the Commission's objectives, the internalisation of external costs through taxation of heavy goods vehicles for use of infrastructure will enable Member States – whether centrally located or outlying – to reduce a series of costs arising from the impact of pollution and the problems mentioned in point 1.4 above. The potential drop in the competitiveness of road transport resulting from this must be assessed comprehensively, within the framework of the general interest, to be identified, and taking account of the economic benefits achieved by reducing the impact of pollution and network congestion in particular.
Furthermore, internalisation should enable the three pillars of the Lisbon strategy – economic, social, environmental – to be respected with regard to transport; this new tool should facilitate this.
1.5.1   The Committee is keen for a framework to be created at Community level for calculating external costs. No Member State should be able to opt out of this. The framework should lay down conditions to which charges aimed at internalising external costs should have to comply, albeit with a margin of tolerance. Levies should also be linked to use and not to ownership of means of transport (2).
1.6   The amendment of the current Directive helps to programme measures to step up efforts to make roads more environmentally friendly: ITS systems (3), engines, fuels, tonnage, surfaces, etc.
1.7   It is also important to point out that if the EU decides to implement a policy of external cost charging, this would have to be applied to all other modes of transport.
1.8   Despite being recently implemented, the Committee deems it necessary, as does the Council and the Parliament, that Directive 2006/38/EC should be amended to make it more effective. To this end, the EESC believes that the draft directive under consideration, drawn up at the instigation of the European Parliament, is timely.
1.9   In addition, the implementation of certain measures from the logistics action plan for the road transport sector, including the use of intelligent communication systems, which are directly related to the application of transport measures in the Galileo project, will undoubtedly help to reduce external transport costs.
1.10   The Committee believes that while road hauliers are currently put at a disadvantage by traffic congestion costs because of the impact of congestion on transport productivity, any measure aimed at reducing this congestion, which is in part the subject of the directive under consideration, will in the long run improve productivity of road and other modes of transport.
1.11   The revenue generated by taxation should be used to improve standards of environmental, social and economic performance in the transport sector.
1.12   The Committee believes that electronic tolls should be used to introduce charging for use of infrastructure; the interoperability of the different systems within the EU is essential.
1.13   The Committee considers that the Directive should encourage Member States to take into account, in accordance with criteria to be established jointly, the level of greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles subject to charging for use of infrastructure and the steps taken to reduce them.
1.14   According to the impact assessment study carried out by the Commission, it is important to take into account the effects of internalisation on the economy as a whole, whether this be the gains or the direct and indirect costs, and the impact on the costs of goods transported both within the European Community, and for import and export.
2.   Introduction
2.1   The EU has a population of 497 million, covers an area of 4 324 782 km2, and has 294 million vehicles (4). It requires sustainable transport in order to deal with its mobility needs. It is the world’s main economic power, accounting for more than 18 % of total imports and exports. Trade relations are at the heart of the economic and social development of any modern society and therefore a way must be found of reconciling development and sustainability.
2.2   Internalisation is an approach that seeks to attribute the external transport costs caused by congestion, noise, air pollution and climate change and to ensure that the prices paid by transport users reflect the social costs. It is way of applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle, as has been called for the by European Parliament.
2.3   The internalisation of external costs has already been analysed and provided for by the Commission in the 1995 Green Paper and the 1998 White Paper. The White Paper of 2001 and the mid-term review in 2006 confirmed the Commission's wish to see efficient charging for use of infrastructure.
2.4   1993 saw the approval of the first directive on charging for the use of road transport infrastructure, known as the Eurovignette.
This Directive was later amended by Directive 1999/62 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.
2.5.1   Article 10 of Directive 2001/14 requires that measures adopted for other modes of transport be applied, by transposition, to railways.
2.6   By 10 June 2008, Member States had to adopt the necessary legal, regulatory and administrative provisions in order to comply with Directive 2006/38/EC on charging for use of infrastructure.
2.7   In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to submit by June 2008 (5) a generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for assessing the external costs to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges. Furthermore, this model was to be accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a phased implementation of the model for these modes.
2.8   In July 2008, the Commission presented to the Council and the Parliament a legislative package on the greening of transport which contains, in addition to the proposed directive that is the subject of this opinion, a communication setting out a model and strategy whose goal was to correctly set transport prices so that they better reflect the costs of the actual use of vehicles, trains, aircraft or ships in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change and a communication on reducing noise from rail freight. In this way, the strategic Communication, already mentioned by the European Parliament and the Council, is the touchstone for the two additional proposals.
2.9   The purpose of the directive under consideration is to harmonise road tolls, not on a compulsory basis but by allowing Member States to choose to introduce a system for internalising a limited number of external costs (congestion, noise, atmospheric pollution, etc.).
Specifically, it should enable the Member States to vary their toll charges in accordance with congestion and so to spread traffic more efficiently by offering lower tolls to encourage hauliers to operate outside rush hours. The economic impact of such differentiation should be positive, both for road transport and for shippers.
2.10   It should be noted that the proposal for a Directive does not prevent the Member States from imposing road charges in urban areas.
3.   General comments
3.1   As it has already signalled in previous opinions, the Committee endorses the ‘polluter pays’ principle and its application, which is the subject of the directive under consideration. The application of this principle, which safeguards the general interest of Europe's citizens, is what the Committee is most concerned about in this area. The EESC believes that a logical application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle means combating the social and environmental effects of the external road transport costs that are the subject of the directive under consideration, while also being committed to seeking new ways of solving the problem.
In this respect, the Committee recognises the Commission's efforts in drawing up its proposals and welcomes the analysis of any initiative whose aims include an improvement in transport sustainability and which would lead to a better social, environmental and economic situation in the EU. In so doing, the EESC can welcome the draft directive but, for the sake of consistency, only on condition that the European Commission takes into account the comments raised by the EESC in its July 2009 opinion on the ‘Strategy for the internalisation of external costs.’ (6) As it rightly points out, the proposed charging system would encourage transport businesses to use less-polluting vehicles, to choose less congested routes, to optimise the cargo on their vehicles and finally to make more efficient use of infrastructure financed by the public through taxation, thus reducing congestion.
3.2   In contrast to the potential impact of the directive, the Committee wonders about the possible implications of the proposal to amend Directive 1999/62/EC for the position of European products in the global markets. It would like the Commission to pay attention to this point.
In any case, the Committee believes that the general and collective interest should be the main concerns and that, from this point of view, the possible disadvantages linked to the internalisation of costs can be offset through the gains made, for example, by reducing environmental pollution, noise pollution, damage to the countryside, and social costs (e.g. costs incurred by poor health, and indirectly by accidents), which generate substantial economic costs that are borne by the public at large - and thus by Europe's citizens. This is the subject of the directive under consideration.
3.3   Despite being recently implemented, the Committee deems it necessary, as does the Council and the Parliament, that Directive 2006/38/EC should be amended to make it more effective.
To this end, the EESC believes that the draft directive under consideration, drawn up at the request of the European Parliament, is timely.
Furthermore, it enables the European Union to send an important signal to the market with a view to improving its economic and environmental performance which is vital for achieving the objectives that the EU has set itself in its energy package.
3.4   The Committee believes that the Commission should ensure that the internal market functions smoothly and that there are no distortions in competition between transport businesses in Member States. It must also ensure territorial, economic and social cohesion.
The introduction of charging for use of infrastructure will require a re-evaluation of the charges for outlying and transit countries, which will be faced with increased costs for importing and exporting goods that bear no comparison to the current costs of pollution, deterioration of infrastructure, traffic jams, as well as damage to public health and the environment. However, the EESC is aware that in an integrated market, the movement of goods is conducted purely on the basis of supply and demand from outlying to central areas or vice-versa, depending on the circumstances; usage charging applicable to all road hauliers thus establishes equality among professionals within the European Union, bearing in mind that it is always the end consumer who ultimately bears the cost.
3.5   The Committee is aware that of all the negative consequences of road transport, only part can be attributed to goods transport.
For this reason there should be a comprehensive approach to pricing.
3.6   The Committee considers that the Commission must, as the Directive requires, present a model for evaluating all external costs without delay, which is to be accompanied by an analysis of the impact of internalising the external costs of all modes of transport, as well as a strategy for a joint and phased implementation for all modes, thus avoiding measures which distort competition between them and hamper the correct application of co-modality.
3.7   As outlined by the 2006 review of the European transport policy, a wide range of policy tools at EC and Member State level is required to optimise European logistics chains, make all forms of transport greener and more efficient, and ultimately, by means of co-modality (7), ensure more sustainable transport.
In the light of this, the Committee believes that the Commission work programme should, parallel to the content of this Directive, place greater emphasis on parallel positive and complementary measures, such as promoting and providing incentives for the purchase of environmentally-friendly vehicles, the consumption of alternative fuels, investment in RTDI, cooperation between various modes of transport, use of public transport, training policies in road safety and fuel-efficient driving techniques, regulating and harmonising the application of traffic restrictions opening corridors of free movement at European level that prevent congestion and artificial obstructions. This would help to improve the situation of international transport workers, enabling them to return home.
3.8   The Committee would like the application of the operational content of this directive to be accompanied by the development of multimodal transport with a view to creating a true alternative solution beyond the possibility of roads use alone.
3.9   The Committee takes account of the fact that road hauliers are currently put at a disadvantage by traffic congestion costs because of the impact of congestion on transport productivity. Any measure aimed at reducing this congestion, which is in part the subject of the directive under consideration, will in the long run improve the productivity of road transport.
On this point, the Committee stresses the importance of the costs of congestion, which could be dealt with by Member States as part of the toll for external costs proposed by the Commission. Congestion costs represent 1,1 % of the European Union's GDP (8). In the absence of any new measures, it is estimated that 29 % of the European road network will be congested in 2020 with adverse impacts in terms of fuel consumption (additional consumption of between 10 and 30 % in the case of heavy congestion) (9) and CO2 emissions. Congestion represents 42 % of all external costs of road transport. Heavy goods vehicles are well-known to cause up to 3.5 % more congestion on inter-urban roads than cars (10).
3.10   The Committee believes that the revenue generated by taxation should be used to improve standards of environmental, social and economic performance in the transport sector.
Among the intended uses for income generated through external cost charging, special emphasis has to be placed on improving working conditions for drivers, for example by constructing safe places to park, enabling drivers to take a break in good conditions, on improving transport fleets through investment in R+D+i, and facilitating observance of social legislation.
In this connection, the Directive could include a reference of a social nature, detailing the impact of an intended use of income generated on improving working conditions for drivers.
3.11   The EESC calls on the Commission to establish appropriate measures so that hauliers can pass on to their customers the costs generated through the charges applied under this directive. The objective here is to ensure that the real cost is met by goods hauliers, not to impair the social conditions of transport workers.
3.12   The Committee agrees with the Commission that the use of electronic tolling systems, as opposed to traditional toll booths, is essential to avoiding disruption to the free flow of traffic that affects all users and to preventing adverse effects on the local environment caused by queues at toll barriers. From this point of view, special attention will have to be paid to workers who find themselves without employment because of the introduction of electronic systems. This attention should be paid in particular to the search for alternative employment in the labour catchment area concerned and the provision of any necessary training.
4.   Specific comments
4.1   The Committee welcomes the fact the tolls and user charges will not entail any kind of discrimination, but this requires that the same principle is always applied in order to rationalise their use and prevent them from generating unnecessary costs for society as a whole.
4.2   The Committee believes that governments must attach more importance to urban planning by municipalities in order to reconcile liveability with the communications needs of the public, avoiding urban sprawl along inter-urban roads. Furthermore, research should be promoted into the use of technically superior road surfaces, which will reduce noise pollution for the benefit of the public.
4.3   Since preventing heavy road congestion and pollution is an important social objective, the Committee believes that the types of vehicles involved in obstructions need to be analysed in order to gain a more accurate picture of areas where action is needed to minimise the impact.
4.4   The Committee welcomes the fact that the amount of the external cost charge is to be set by an authority independent of the organisation in charge of managing or collecting part or all of the charge. However, a high degree of objectivity must be ensured.
4.5   The Committee believes it is right that any mark-ups resulting from internalisation of costs linked to infrastructure in mountainous regions are used to finance the construction of priority projects of European interest which favour co-modality and provide a combined transport alternative for the mode which contributes to the financing of the infrastructure.
4.6   The Committee believes it is right that where a driver is unable, in the event of a check, to produce the vehicle documents necessary to ascertain the EURO emission class of the vehicle, Member States may apply tolls up to the highest level chargeable, provided that subsequent redress is possible with appropriate compensation for the excess charged.
4.7   The Committee would be in favour of a differentiated system for vehicles on the basis of the pollution or noise they produce.
4.8   The Committee welcomes the fact that the implementation of toll and payment collection is designed to disrupt traffic flows as little as possible. It also believes that is essential to eliminate the bottlenecks that currently occur at certain border posts where tolls are collected.

Brussels, 17 December 2009.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI




(1)  OJ C 317, 23.12.2009, p. 80


(2)  See opinion mentioned in footnote no. 1.

(3)  OJ C 277, 17.11.2009, p. 85.

(4)  According to statistics from the Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport from 2006, in the EU-27 there are 30 837 000 motorcycles, 229 954 000 private vehicles, 797 900 buses and 32 249 000 commercial vehicles.

(5)  Article 11 of Directive 2006/38/EC: No later than 10 June 2011, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive, taking account of developments in technology and the trend in traffic density, including the use of vehicles of more than 3,5 and less than 12 tonnes, and evaluating its impact on the internal market, including on island, landlocked and peripheral regions of the Community, levels of investment in the sector and its contribution to the objectives of a sustainable transport policy.
Member States shall forward the necessary information for the report to the Commission no later than 10 December 2010.
No later than 10 June 2008, the Commission shall present, after examining all options including environment, noise, congestion and health-related costs, a generally applicable, transparent and comprehensible model for the assessment of all external costs to serve as the basis for future calculations of infrastructure charges. This model shall be accompanied by an impact analysis of the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and a strategy for a stepwise implementation of the model for all modes of transport. The report and the model shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals to the European Parliament and the Council for further revision of this Directive.

(6)  See footnote 1.

(7)  ‘Co-modality’ means the efficient use of transport modes operating on their own or in multimodal integration in the European transport system to reach an optimal and sustainable utilisation of resources.

(8)  European Commission, Communication on greening transport.

(9)  European Commission, Impact study on internalisation of external costs. page 55.

(10)  CE Delft: Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector (IMPACT).


APPENDIX TO THE OPINION
of the European Economic and Social Committee
The following amendment, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, was put to the vote and rejected in the course of the debate:

Point 3.9


Amend as follows:


‘The Committee takes account of the fact that […].

On this point, the Committee stresses the importance of the costs of congestion, which could be dealt with by Member States as part of the toll for external costs proposed by the Commission. Congestion costs represent 1,1 % of the European Union's GDP (1). In the absence of any new measures, it is estimated that 29 % of the European road network will be congested in 2020 with adverse impacts in terms of fuel consumption (additional consumption of between 10 and 30 % in the case of heavy congestion) (2) and CO2 emissions. Congestion represents 42 % of all external costs of road transport; . .’


Reason

According to the footnote, the sentence ‘Heavy goods vehicles are well-known to cause up to 3,5 % more congestion on inter-urban roads than cars’ is taken (without any page number being given) from the CE Delft IMPACT handbook. But the sentence concerned in this study (noted by the members tabling this amendment to be at the top of page 34) actually reads ‘This approach reflects the responsibility for congestion in proportion to the road space consumed’, which is something quite different. Deletion seems better than taking over the sentence from the study because the preceding sentences are taken from other studies which refer to the whole of road transport, whereas the sentence from the study refers to one individual truck. The text cited refers only to a standard calculation and road space taken up by a single truck. But congestion is caused by the lack of infrastructure capacity for a certain traffic flow of private cars and trucks at a certain moment in time or by unusual circumstances such as accidents or bad weather. In the case of infrastructure capacity, the crucial factor is the intensity or mix of private cars and trucks (Eurostat data for the EU 27: less than 20 % of traffic consists of heavy goods vehicles; there are around 230 million private cars and only 34 million buses and trucks). The average proportion of accidents caused by trucks in the EU between 1996 and 2006 was only 13 %, of which only a fraction caused congestion.








 


For: 91


Against: 138


Abstentions:10






(1)  European Commission, Communication on greening transport.

(2)  European Commission, Impact study on internalisation of external costs. page 55.

(3)