COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States
Date: 2017-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: air quality, carriage of goods, clean technology, combined transport, greenhouse gas, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.11.2017  SWD(2017) 363 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States {COM(2017) 648 final}  - {SWD(2017) 362 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 
Impact assessment on the amendment of Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common 
rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The uptake of intermodal transport in Europe has not grown sufficiently to meet the modal shift target set in the 
2011 White paper, despite the contribution to modal shift by the Combined Transport Directive. This is due to :  
A) a lack of investments in intermodal infrastructure, and most notably on transhipment terminal, and  
B) shortcomings of the Combined Transport Directive identified in the REFIT evaluation: 

1)  Ineffective  implementation  of  the  Directive  due  to  complex  and  narrow  eligibility  criteria  and  lack  of 

effective enforcement conditions;  

2)  Ineffective and insufficient economic support : narrow scope of the support measures, insufficient 

economic support and limited monitoring and lack of review mechanism 

These problems affect all actors in the international freight transport chain, such as shippers, freight forwarders, 
national authorities involved in the enforcement of the combined transport conditions etc. They also hinder the 
effective implementation of support measures. 

In the absence of intervention, intermodal transport will remain less competitive vis-à-vis road transport and the 
modal shift target for 2030 set in the 2011 White Paper will not be reached leading to persisting externalities. . 
What should be achieved?  
The  initiative  aims  at  improving  the  effectiveness  of  the  Combined  Transport  Directive  (complex  definition, 
limited  incentives  and  outdated  provisions)  and  enhancing  the  existing  partially  ineffective  support  measures 
meant  to  tackle  the  regulatory  and  market  failures  to  the  wider  uptake  of  intermodal  transport  (modal  shift). 
The shortcomings of the Directive relate in particular to the definition of Combined Transport, the limitations of 
fiscal incentives and the outdated provisions relating to transport documents. The three main specific objectives 
are: 1)  to  clarify  the  definition  of  combined  transport  eligibility  conditions;  2)  to  further  stimulate  the 
competitiveness  of  combined  transport;  3)  to  increase  the  investment  in,  and  the  capacity  of,  intermodal 
terminals 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
Coordinated  EU  action  in  the  scope  of  Combined  Transport  Directive  is  necessary  to  address  the  transport 
(especially  road)  negative  externalities  and  promote  modal  shift  with  an  aim  to  achieve  the  goals  set  in  the 
Transport White paper 2011, the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy and other EU policies in the area. To this end, 
an  updated  common  definition  and  common  criteria  are  needed  to  ensure  that  the  benefits  foreseen  in  the 
Directive are applicable the same way throughout the EU, notably considering that from all intermodal transport 
operations in the EU, 81% are cross-border ones. If Member States would use different definitions, enforce the 
Directive  differently  and  apply  different  support  schemes,  operators  might  not  be  able  to  benefit  from  the 
foreseen incentives throughout the transport chain. 

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Policy options consist of packages of policy measures addressing the specific objectives, and more 
specifically the identified main problem drivers: 

Policy  option  1(PO1):  Minimal  amendment  with  focus  on  simplification  :  compared  to  the  baseline,  this 
consists of a simplification of the definition (i.e. with road-leg distance set at 150km); the acceptance of simple 
electronic documents as proof of eligibility and the extension of the fiscal incentive to road hauliers when other 
modes but rail are used on the non-road leg (e.g. IWW or maritime);   
Policy option 2. Simplification of the eligibility criteria (definition) and the control thereof and providing more 
effective economic support. There are two sub-options: 
- with limited ambitions (PO2A): extension of geographical scope to include national CT; a common definition of 
the road leg (150km or 20 whichever is longer); the acceptance of only ISO/ILU identified load units; the clear 
definition of requirements for proof eligibility; and more options for economic support 
- with higher ambitions (PO2B): in addition to PO2A, the possibility for MS to have some flexibility as regard the 
road leg distance; the extension of load units to all sizes; a mandatory support measure for building terminals. 
Policy  option  3  (PO3)  :  Changing  the  eligibility  criteria  (definition)  to  cover  all  intermodal  transport  with 

2 

 
 
 
 
mandatory support measures : extended geographical coverage as for PO2; no limits on road and non-road legs, 
nor on load units; no data requirements for proof of eligibility; mandatory support measures (beneficial regime) 
for all intermodal transport 
The preferred option is Option PO2B which ensures that the modal shift target for 2030 is reached and which 
delivers a higher return on investment (B/C) and environmental efficiency than Option PO3. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
There  is  a  broad  agreement  among  all  stakeholders  that  the  status  quo  (baseline)  cannot  be  maintained  and 
that  measures  to  clarify  the  CT  definition,  ease  its  enforcement  and  provide  with  extended  support  measures 
are supported. Positions are split on the nature of support measures: while operators are in favour of extending 
and mandating support measures to all types of intermodal transport (Option PO3), Member States rather prefer 
some  flexibility  in  the  support  measures  they  should  or  shall  apply  (PO2A  and  PO2B).  Member  States  also 
support flexibility in the definition of CT as long as road legs remain "as short as possible"(PO2B). The majority 
of stakeholders (2/3 mostly operators) support the geographical extension to national CT (Options PO2A, PO2B, 
PO3). Note: On the so-called "cabotage" exemptions, the majority of stakeholders (operators + MS) support the 
maintenance  of  current  provisions  although  Member  States  underline  the  need  to  ensure  better  enforcement 
conditions  and  hence  avoid  possible  circumvention,  through  the  Combined  Transport  Directive,  of  "cabotage" 
rules.   

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
- strong potential to achieve the modal shift target of 30% or freight transport (>300 km) by 2030; 
-  positive  impact  in  terms  of  savings  (reduced  cost)  for  industry  (operators)  from  clearer  conditions  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive,  usage  of  electronic  transport  documents  and  means,  extended  economic 
support, etc... These are estimated to be around €64.6 billion for the period between 2022 and 2030.  
-  positive  impact  in  terms  of  external  cost  savings  (due  to  modal  shift)  around  €1,62  billion  for  the  period 
between 2022 and 2030, 
-  positive  impact  in  terms  of  expected  job  creation  due  to  more  investments  in  terminals,  which  can  be 
estimated at an economic benefit of €361.41 million for the period between 2020 and 2030  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
-  the  combined  additional  cost  for  the  authorities  in  terms  of  additional  support  measures  (operational  and 
investment) in the period 2022-2030 amounts €2.9 billion. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
While intermodal operators in the area of rail transport and shipping tend to be big-medium or large companies, 
operators in road transport and inland waterways are often SMEs. For those, the impacts of policy option PO2B 
are  expected  to  bring  along  a  higher  shift  to  intermodal  transport  thanks  to  wider  definition  of  the  eligibility 
criteria. However, the introduction of electronic structured data for control purposes may bring along relatively 
high  investment  costs  for  SMEs  engaged  in  organising  the  transport  operation  and  preparing  the  data  (e.g.  
137.250€ per company) although savings are expected to be €145.000 per company per year. The impact on 
road SME operators using the new systems should thus be small and positive. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
As  mentioned  above,  the  preferred  option  would  entail  additional  costs  for  national  authorities  to  enforce  the 
rules (but far less significant than the savings for industry). 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
As mentioned above, the initiative is expected to have significant positive environmental impacts (€1,62 billion of 
external savings for the period between 2022 and 2030) and impacts on the overall level of jobs at the EU level 
(between 1428 and 4759 between 2022 and 2030). 
Proportionality?  
The preferred option does not exceed what is necessary to solve the original problem and meet the objectives of 
the initiative. Member States will have some flexibility in terms of application of some of the provision (road-leg 
definition)  and  the  support  measures  to  be  taken,  while  a  common  understanding  of  the  fundamental  set  of 
rules will be ensured. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Updated monitoring conditions and a review mechanism is foreseen, with a first report after five years of entry 
into force of the Directive.  

3