Memorandum by The Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (EU 12)
EUROPEAN UNION COMPETENCE AND TRANSPORT
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 In this Memorandum, the RSPB sets out
the historical background which establishes the current EU competence
on transport, from the Treaty of Rome through to the publication
of the White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide. We also briefly set out the responsibilities of the European
Union (EU) in relation to the integration of environmental issues
into transport policy.
1.2 We have discussed in further detail
three specific areas of EU transport policy, namely, trans-European
Transport Networks (TEN-T), the Eurovignette directive and aviation.
1.3 We are concerned about a number of issues
in relation to the proposed revision of the TEN-T Guidelines.
One of our key concerns is the possible damage caused by the TEN-T,
and the priority projects in particular, to sites proposed or
designated as Natura 2000 sites under the EU Birds and Habitats
Directives. We also believe that, in developing this area of transport
policy, there appears to have been little consideration to other
competences, such as those set out on Article 130r (Environment)
of the EC Treaty.
1.4 In relation to the proposed amendment
to the Eurovignette directive, we believe that there are aspects
of the proposal that may contradict the principle of subsidiarity.
We also believe that the proposal could subsidise and exacerbate
the problems associated with road haulage, by reserving revenue
raised from charges for additional development of the road sector.
1.5 With regards to aviation, we believe
the EU should take action to curb aviation emissions. In the immediate
future, the EU should introduce an emissions charge and in the
medium-term, we believe the EU should consider including aviation
emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme from 2008.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The RSPB considers that human-induced
climate change poses the biggest long-term threat to global biodiversity.
We therefore support policies and measures that reduce the anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The transport
sector currently accounts for over 20% of greenhouse gas emissions
in the United Kingdom and in the European Union (EU).
2.2 Transport can have a number of other
direct effects on birds, biodiversity, and the environment, including
direct land take, habitat fragmentation, noise, motion and light
disturbance, bird and animal strike and local air pollution. Each
of these effects is important. Together, they mean that sustainable
transport policy is of great significance for birds, biodiversity
and the wider environment, as well as for delivering social and
economic benefits.
3. BACKGROUND
TO EU TRANSPORT
POLICY
3.1 The task of the EC is set out in Article
2 of the EC Treaty, including promoting throughout the Community
a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic
activities and a high level of protection and improvement of the
quality of the environment. The tasks of the EC represent broad
fields of competence. In order to fulfil these tasks, the activities
of the EC, as set out in Article 3, include common policies in
the spheres of transport and the environment.
3.2 The EC Treaty contains a number of further
articles defining specific policy areas, including transport.
These articles define the scope of EC competence in policymaking.
3.3 The transport chapter (Title IV and
referred to as the Common Transport Policy) remains essentially
unchanged since 1957, and can be summarised as follows:
(i) The Community is to have common rules
governing international transport, and conditions are to be agreed
under which non-resident carriers can operate in all Member States.
(ii) Measures are to be taken to improve
transport safety.
(iii) State aids are allowed for the purposes
of "coordination of transport" or to fulfil public service
obligations.
(iv) Discriminatory charges or other conditions
(in effect against foreign carriers) are generally forbidden.
3.4 The exercise of the various powers by
the EC is governed by a number of operating principles. Most important
amongst these are the subsidiarity and proportionality principles.
3.5 The principle of subsidiarity means
that EU decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the
citizen. In other words, the EU does not take action unless EU
action is more effective than action taken at national, regional
or local level. For example, setting minimum standards for products
to be sold in the single market requires community action, but
setting parking standards for housing probably does not, because
different standards in different countries do not cause obvious
problems in the latter case, and can better reflect local circumstances.
3.6 The principle of proportionality principle
dictates that EC action should be proportionate to the issue at
hand. Framework legislation, minimum standards and mutual recognition
of national standards should also be preferred where possible
above more detailed EC rules.
3.7 With regards to environmental protection,
the EC did not acquire explicit Treaty responsibilities until
the Single European Act took effect in 1987. These responsibilities
and powers have subsequently been extended under the Maastricht
and Amsterdam Treaties. In particular, these treaties have established
the requirement for environmental considerations to be integrated
into all other areas of EC policymaking, including transport.
3.8 At the European Council meeting in Gothenburg
in 2001, the need for a sustainable development strategy was discussed.
Four main areas for action were highlighted, these were, climate
change, transport, public health and natural resources. In relation
to transport, a "significant decoupling" of transport
growth and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was called for.
3.9 In September 2001, the European Commission
published the White Paper European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide. The overall aim of the White Paper is to strike
a balance between economic development and the quality and safety
demands made by society in order to develop a modern, sustainable
transport system. It tackles a number of transport related issues
including rebalancing the different modes of transport, tackling
congestion problems and promotion of alternative fuels.
3.10 Therefore, there are general guides
setting out of the limits of Community competence in transport,
but these are not clear-cut, and so differences in interpretation
can easily arise. These differences should be dealt with at a
very early stage of the legislative cycle. A systematic approach,
where objectives, trends and the need for legislation are set
out in Green and White Papers, then translated into legislative
programmes, with built-in consultation of Member States and stakeholders
is key to this process. Such a systematic and transparent approach
has in fact been set out under the Better Regulation initiative.
However, there have been a number of examples in recent years
that suggest that the Commission has attached insufficient importance
to such matters.
4. ISSUES RELATING
TO SPECIFIC
EU TRANSPORT POLICIES
4.1 Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)
Article 129b of the EC Treaty requires the Community
to "contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European
networks (TENs) in the areas of transport, telecommunications
and energy infrastructures". Community action is to "aim
at promoting the interconnection and inter-operability of national
networks as well as access to such networks" and shall take
account of "the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral
regions with the central regions of the Community".
4.2 Decision No. 1692/96/EC established
the guidelines for the development of the TENs for transport (TEN-T).
A proposal is currently being considered which will amend this
decision. This proposal includes a list of 29 priority projects.
An Extended Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of the process
of drafting the latest revision proposal.
4.3 The RSPB and the BirdLife partners are
concerned about a number of issues in relation to the TEN-T revision
proposal. In brief, our concerns are:
(i) The Extended Impact Assessment did not
adequately consider environmental issues.
(ii) The assumption is made that in the future
transport volumes will grow, thus investments are needed to solve
problems of congestion, bottlenecks and to provide better connections
for peripheral areas. Demand management measures do not feature
in any of the proposed amendments.
(iii) In the present European transport system,
there are trade-offs between the quantity and the quality of the
transport networks, which favour quantity. The proposal for revision
had lost sight of overall needs and the possible alternatives
to building, and focused on the increase of individual capacities,
through an extended list of 29 priority projects.
(iv) The process of choosing the priority
projects was subject to political and economic influences, assuming
a direct relationship between new investments and economic growth.
The environmental impact of the priority projects, alone or in
combination with others, have not been taken into consideration.
One of our key concerns is the possible damage caused by the TEN-T,
and the priority projects in particular, to sites proposed or
designated as Natura 2000 sites under the EU Birds and Habitats
Directives. There is no clear mechanism to remove projects from
this list if it is found that they have undesired and irreversible
environmental impact.
(v) The Commission has developed some guidelines
for Cost-Benefit Analysis, however, we believe these should be
developed further, so that they include social and environmental
costs and benefits, including an economic valuation of the ecosystem
functions.
(vi) We believe the amount of money needed
to invest in the new TEN-T priority projects could be more usefully
employed in other areas of EU's economy, with a greater impact
on the well being of its citizens, and the proposed earmarking
of Structural and Cohesion funds for priority projects is not
likely to bring such a result.
4.4 We are further concerned that the process
for amending the TEN-T Guidelines has been particularly convoluted
and lacking in transparency. In developing this area of transport
policy, there appears to have been little consideration to other
competences, such as those set out on Article 130r (Environment)
of the EC Treaty.
4.5 The Eurovignette Directive
Certain aspects of road user charging are commonly
agreed at the EU level for a number of reasons. This is because
it is necessary to ensure that each Member State does not discriminate
against foreign hauliers through road user charges or tolls, or
excessively advantage their own hauliers through other taxation.
4.6 The objective of Directive 1999/62/EC
(on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain
infrastructures and known as the Eurovignette directive) is to
harmonise levy systems—vehicle taxes, tolls and charges
relating to the use of road infrastructure—and introduce
fair mechanisms for charging infrastructure costs to hauliers.
The Directive covers vehicle taxes, tolls and user charges imposed
on vehicles intended for the carriage of goods by road and having
a maximum permissible gross laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes.
4.7 However, many Member States have been
contemplating the introduction of some form of more comprehensive
road user charging, such that, a more sophisticated and flexible
framework was required at the European level. For example, the
UK would like to introduce a charging scheme that would apply
to all commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes using the entire national
road network, and for these charges to cover environmental costs,
as well as the costs of the infrastructure.
4.8 In July 2003, the European Commission
adopted a proposal on charging heavy goods vehicles to use Europe's
principal roads. This proposal will amend Directive 1999/62/EC.
4.9 There are three aspects of the proposed
amendments that are of concern to us, these are:
(i) User charges and tolls may be limited
to roads that form part of the TEN-T. Charges on roads in direct
competition with the TEN-T can only be made with the specific
permission of the Commission.
(ii) The external costs of accidents may
be included, but environmental and congestion costs cannot be
charged for.
(iii) Revenues from user charges must be
earmarked for the transport sector.
4.10 The Eurovignette proposal allows road
tolls and user charges to be applied in principle only to roads
forming part of the TEN-T (charges may be permitted to non-TEN-T
roads but this is not clear at this stage). If this is the case,
we believe that it could well encourage heavy goods traffic onto
non-TEN-T roads where they can do greater damage. The Commission's
wish to be the arbiter on which non-TEN-T roads may qualify for
user charges may be in contradiction to the principle of subsidiarity.
At the European Council meeting in Gothenburg in 2001, the need
for the full internalisation of social and environmental costs
was reinforced. We feel that the failure of the Eurovignette proposal
to provide for charging for environmental and congestion costs
contradicts the principles set out at Gothenburg.
4.11 The explanatory memorandum that accompanies
the Eurovignette proposal makes it clear that money from charges
should generally be used for the sector from which the charge
was raised. If this means that money from charges should be used
to support non-road transport modes, and public transport in particular,
this would be sensible. Perversely, however, it could be interpreted
that any revenue raised must be reserved for the road sector rather
than the transport sector as a whole. If this is the case, we
believe that it is effectively using external cost pricing to
contribute to the development of the cause of the externality
and, thus, subsidising and exacerbating the problems associated
with road haulage.
4.12 Aviation—Open Skies
Deregulation of the civil aviation sector is
also a central plank of EC transport policy, under the general
heading of "Open Skies". The Commission has been effective
in laying down common rules and getting legislation passed in
this area, taking advantage of the potentially broad range of
Community competence in this area. However, a number of Member
States including the UK have guarded their right to negotiate
bilateral agreements with third parties such as the US. By this
means, they consider themselves to gain preferential terms but,
as a result of these arrangements, US carriers now enjoy far better
access to the European aviation market than vice versa.
4.13 However, a European Court of Justice ruling
on 5 November 2002 (against the UK and seven other Member States)
confirmed the Commission's argument that these arrangements were
illegal, and that the Community did indeed have some implicit
competence in this area, in the fields of airport landing slots,
reservation systems, and intra-Community fares and rates, for
the reasons outlined above. The Court also ruled that such agreements
were illegal, because they discriminated against carriers in other
EU Member States. The Commission argues that other areas of competence,
including safety and taxes and charges, have also become Community
competences by the same line of argument, and so a much stronger
Commission involvement in international negotiations can now be
anticipated, with the US and elsewhere.
4.14 Aviation—Constraining demand
As the fastest growing source of greenhouse
gas emissions, the EU has long recognised that aviation emissions
need to be constrained and has repeatedly said so in the international
negotiations on the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.
However, mainly due to pressure from successive US Administrations,
aviation emissions were excluded from the international treaties
on climate change and included in the remit of the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Whilst ICAO's Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) has proposed an "open"
international emissions trading scheme, it would take a decade
or more, if ever, for such a scheme to come into operation.
4.15 In the interim, in line with policy
statements by EU (including UK) ministers, we believe the EU should
take action to curb aviation emissions. In the immediate future,
the EU should introduce an emissions charge which, unlike some
other measures, would not breach the conditions of the Chicago
Convention which established ICAO or a host of Bilateral Air Service
Agreements that, for example, ban taxation on fuel used for international
aviation. In the medium term, the EU should consider including
aviation emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme from 2008.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 European competence on transport is
defined in the EC Treaty although these are only general guides
setting out of the limits of Community competence and are not
clear-cut. Differences in interpretation of Community competence
should be dealt with at a very early stage of the legislative
cycle but this is not always the case.
5.2 The RSPB believes that the proposed
revision to the Eurovignette directive may be in contradiction
to the principle of subsidiarity and may prove too restrictive
for Member States that may wish to charge heavy goods vehicles
for using the entire road network, and for the environmental consequences
of that use.
5.3 The TEN-T Guidelines revision proposals
demonstrate that the current emphasis of EU Transport Policy is
still upon modal shift and removal of bottlenecks. The RSPB believes
that without effective policies on demand management, there is
a real possibility that this approach will lead to continuing
growth in traffic, and continuing damage to the environment, both
at a very high cost. This approach also demonstrates that the
EU is still failing to fully integrate environmental policy into
transport policy as set out in the Single European Act and the
Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.
January 2004
| 
