Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland'
17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/1 II (Preparatory Acts) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland’ (1) (1999/C 329/01) On 14 June 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under the second paragraph of Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, 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 20 July 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Kielman. At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 101 votes to 1. 1. Introduction At the Council of Ministers meeting on 30 November 1. 1. and 1 December 1998, a political agreement was hammered out between Switzerland and the European Community for a system of rules on the transport of goods and passengers by rail and road. 1. 2. The text on the transport of goods and passengers is one of the seven areas on which the EU and Switzerland have reached agreement. The others are: freedom of movement for workers, free trade in agricultural products, technical barriers to trade, access to public or semi-public corporations, the research market and air transport. 1. 3. Part of the agreement on the transport of goods and passengers regulates how EU hauliers whose vehicles or vehicle combinations exceed 28 tonnes maximum total weight are to be allowed on to Swiss territory. Until now, Switzerland has not accepted lorries exceeding this weight. 1. 4. The proposal involves granting permits to Member States for their lorries circulating in Switzerland. The arrange- ments will run for five years, starting in the year 2000 and ending on 1 January 2005, when Switzerland will align fully on EU standards for the weights and dimensions of goods vehicles. 1. 5. For the year 2000 there will be a total of 250 000 of these ‘full-weight permits’ available for EU-registered lorries. For 2001 and 2002 the total will rise to 300 000 and for 2003 and 2004 it will be 400 000. Permits in the year 2000 will allow lorries to circulate 1. 6. on Swiss territory at weights of over 28 tonnes, whilst permits for the years 2001 to 2004 will allow lorries of over 34 tonnes. After 2000, lorries under 34 tonnes will not need a permit to enter Switzerland. After 1 January 2005 there will be free access for all lorries up to a maximum weight of 40 tonnes. (1) OJ C 114 of 27. 4. 1999, p. 4. Obviously, the EU maximum weight of 40 tonnes will be in force throughout the period 2000-2004. C 329/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 11. 1999 1. 7. During the transitional period the agreement allows a certain number of permits to be granted to EU hauliers enabling them to transit Switzerland if their lorries are empty or are carrying certain specified loads. These are to be known as ‘empty permits’. The annual quota of empty permits is fixed at 220 000 1. 8. for 2000-2004. The infrastructure charge for a lorry transiting Switzerland with such a permit will be CHF 40 in 2000, rising by CHF 10 per year to CHF 80 in 2004 (see Appendix 1). 1. 9. In Annex III, the Commission describes its method- ology for determining the allocation of permits to the Member States. As regards full-weight permits, its proposals are that: — A basic allocation of 1 500 permits will be made to each Member State. — For bilateral traffic, the allocation will be made on the basis of the shares of heavy vehicles registered in the Member States in bilateral road transport to and from Switzerland. — For transit traffic, the allocation will be made on the basis of the shares of heavy vehicles registered in the Member States in the total number of diverted kilometres in North-South transalpine road traffic as a result of the current weight restrictions in Switzerland. The Commission proposes carrying out a compre- 1. 9. 1. hensive survey in 1999 which will include details of the nationality of vehicles and the additional mileage covered because of diversions; the findings may lead to changes in the currently recommended allocation. The Commission would like to submit any proposal on this to the committee which is to be set up under the regulation. 1. 9. 2. The Commission suggests that ‘empty permits’ be allocated on the basis of the shares of vehicles registered in the Member States in transit traffic through Switzerland of vehicles with a laden weight of between 7,5 and 28 tonnes. 2. General comments The aim of the draft regulation is to allocate permits 2. 1. between all the Member States up to the end of 2004. From 2005 onwards HGVs are to have unlimited access to Swiss territory, though such access will be subject to high fees (see Appendix 2). Since the planned transalpine rail tunnels (NEAT) are not scheduled for completion before 2010, the volume of diverted traffic will be very high until then, or even afterwards if necessary. Anyway, the ESC feels that while the rail tunnels may in themselves be a good option for road transport, use of the railway must not be imposed through artificial tariff incentives (1). 2. 2. The Commission’s plan for allocating permits is based on two factors: (i) the share of each Member State in bilateral traffic with Switzerland and (ii) their share in transit traffic through Switzerland. 2. 3. Although the Commission’s methodology is — pro- visionally — based on statistics on each EU Member State’s trade with Switzerland, the ESC feels the Commission should also use transport statistics, which are more reliable for this purpose than overall trade figures. The ESC regrets that the Commission has to base its calculations on these trade figures for the moment, but carefully notes its undertaking to act as quickly as possible if the 1999 survey shows that permits need to be allocated differently. 2. 4. The ESC has noted the regrettable, tragic accident that has led to the closure of the Mont Blanc tunnel for an unspecified — but certainly long — period. This has led, among other things, 2. 4. 1. to increased congestion at other border crossings, such as Frejus, which has hampered the free movement of goods and diminished road safety. The impact on trade and economic development throughout the EU and the social consequences for the people concerned have also been severe. 2. 4. 2. this situation would be to: The ESC thinks that two possible ways of relieving — allow all HGVs to pass freely through Switzerland until the permit scheme comes into force; or — bring forward the date on which HGVs up to 40 tonnes can transit through Switzerland. 2. 4. 3. such an agreement with Switzerland. The ESC urges the Council/Commission to conclude 2. 4. 4. Since the agreement still has to be signed by the Council, the Committee considers that the measures referred to in 2. 4. 2 could be discussed in greater detail. 2. 5. By using trade statistics rather than transport statistics, the Commission does not take account of vehicles’ nationality, which will lead to questionable conclusions being drawn when allocating permits among the Member States. No account whatsoever is taken of ‘third country traffic’, i. e. transport between two Member States using a HGV registered in a third (1) OJ C 116 of 28. 4. 1999, p. 28. 17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/3 Member State. Trade statistics attribute such transport to a haulier from one of the first two Member States. As a result, one of these two Member States will be allocated too many permits — as their traffic share will be over-estimated — while the third country, which actually performed the transport operation, will lose out. For some countries such ‘third country traffic’ represents more than 10 % of their international operations, so the trade statistics method may substantially distort the true state of affairs. As the number of available HGV permits is limited in 2. 6. comparison with the number of recipient countries, the Commission proposes a minimum annual quota of 1 500 for each Member State. 2. 6. 1. Moreover, the Member States must return unused permits to the Commission by 15 November each year for redistribution. 2. 6. 2. The ESC thinks this date should be brought forward, so that the permits can be actually redistributed. In addition, the redistribution of permits among the Member States on the basis of the survey should include the minimum quota of 1 500 permits for each Member State. 2. 7. The Commission uses the same allocation criteria for bilateral and transit traffic. It proposes to allocate permits equally to both types. The Commission offers no justification for this other than a directive from the Council of Ministers. The ESC accepts this political situation but recommends that a different allocation policy be adopted if the survey shows that the actual ratio of bilateral to transit permits is different. Given the limited number of permits available, they should be used in the best way possible. It should also be pointed out here that bilateral traffic 2. 7. 1. is considered as a round trip, requiring only one permit, while two permits are necessary for a two-way transit journey. 2. 8. In order to determine accurately the number of permits to be allocated to each Member State, it is important to have information on the nationality of vehicles and on distances and diverted mileage. The EU Statistical Office can only provide information on this area and the Commission piecemeal therefore says that it must use an approximation when allocating shares. 2. 9. The Commission proposes to carry out traffic counting surveys this year so it can work with more reliable data as quickly as possible. 2. 9. 1. set out in point 1. 9. The parameters to be used by the Commission are 2. 9. 2. Traffic will be counted at all the border crossings with Switzerland, through the Frejus tunnel, the Gotthard tunnel and the Brenner pass. 2. 9. 3. The ESC also assumes that the committee to be set up under the regulation will include, at least as observers, representatives of road transport organisations or the IRTU, in addition to representatives of the Member States and the Commission. The ESC can go along with the method proposed by 2. 9. 4. the Commission, provided that permits are reallocated among the Member States as soon as the traffic surveys have been carried out. 3. Specific comments Page 3 of the proposal (point b) states that 3. 1. the Commission considers that the share-out of quotas should be based on the shares of Member States’ hauliers in the total costs to the Community of the 28-tonne weight limit: i. e. every from the same percentage Member State should benefit reduction in its costs. The ESC would like the Commission to provide further explanation on this point. On page 6 of the proposal the Commission estimates 3. 2. that 28 % of total diverted mileage comes from vehicles registered in Italy. But a very large part of the transalpine traffic between Italy and Germany goes through the Brenner pass in Austria. Can the Commission explain how it arrived at this figure of 28 %? 3. 3. The ESC has strong reservations about the data compi- lation exercise that the Commission intends to carry out in order to obtain better transport figures. Does the Commission intend to take account only of the nationality of the vehicles, or will it also check whether they are ‘empty’ or ‘loaded’? This question is very important for deciding what type of permit should be granted. 2. 8. 1. Countries which do have more detailed data consider this to be extremely unsatisfactory, since the ‘better’ infor- mation is not taken into account and, in particular, countries which practise ‘third country transport’ suffer, because trips are counted in the trade statistics of the supplying country, and not in the transport statistics of the transporting country. 3. 4. The ESC states categorically that the present method proposed by the Commission for allocating permits can only be temporary, since it must perforce be based on trade statistics instead of transport statistics, a method which may give false results, especially for countries which are heavily involved in third country transport. C 329/4 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 11. 1999 4. Summing-up and conclusions The ESC thinks that, in view of the political straitjacket 4. 1. in which the Commission had to draw up the proposal on allocating permits, it has produced an initial proposal based on a methodology that is inherently acceptable. The ESC assumes moreover that as soon as the results 4. 2. of the survey on the nationality of vehicles are available, permits will actually be redistributed, so as to correct the injustices mentioned earlier. The ESC feels that this should apply both to the allocation of permits among the Member States and to the ratio of bilateral to transit permits. 4. 3. As regards the impact on road transport of the closure of the Mont Blanc tunnel, the ESC would highlight the social in particular, of this closure for the other consequences, tunnels and border crossings. Brussels, 22 September 1999. 4. 4. So that the Member States in question suffer no serious social or economic consequences, the ESC would urge the Commission, Council and Parliament to do everything in their power to approve temporary solutions as quickly as possible and to put pressure on Switzerland using all possible means. 4. 5. The ESC feels that the construction of rail tunnels through the Alps may in itself be a good option for road transport, but considers that use of the railway must not be imposed through artificial tariff incentives (1). 4. 6. The ESC thinks the deadline of 15 November, by which the Member States are supposed to return unused permits to the Commission, should be brought forward to allow the permits to be used during the current year. (1) OJ C 116 of 28. 4. 1999, p. 28. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI 17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/5 APPENDIX I to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Current charge The current charge (the ‘Schwerverkehrsabgabe’) payable by laden or empty vehicles with a total authorised weight exceeding 3,5 tonnes is CHF 25 per day. APPENDIX II to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Charges after 1 January 2005 The following charges will be payable by HGVs with a maximum total weight of 40 tonnes travelling on the Basle-Chiasso route. — if the Lötschberg tunnel is not used, the average charge will be CHF 297, — this will apply until 2007 at the latest; — if the Lötschberg tunnel is used, the average charge will be CHF 330 until 2008 at the latest. Empty vehicles will attract the standard ‘Schwerverkehrsabgabe’