Brussels, 24/06/2014 (Agence Europe) - As his sometimes bumpy mandate as European Commissioner for Transport approaches an end, Siim Kallas gives EUROPE an overview of the big issues that are still on the table. (Interview conducted by MD)
Member states are constantly increasing the pressure to tackle issues related to social dumping and cabotage in road transport. What is your opinion on this?
There is a lot of hypocrisy and diversionary tactics - a search for “fake solutions” - in the discussion on cabotage. What makes me more and more frustrated is that some countries use cabotage as some kind of demonised word - something to hide behind and an excuse not to tackle real problems. 2% of all freight is affected by cabotage, not 20 nor 12%! This means that economically it has no big impact. The problem in road transport is, of course, social dumping and bad working conditions. Of course, big differences remain between French and Romanian drivers. But these differences are not as big as 10 years ago. There is a convergence. It seems to me that countries that are not able to enforce social rules hide behind the idea that cabotage is the devil, which is not in fact the main cause of all the problems. Another issue is the right of establishment and again this is not related to cabotage as such. On the contrary, cabotage restrictions create distortions which force, for example, Danish companies to have subsidiaries in Germany. You can solve the other problems when you recognise that the problem is not the cabotage rules. I think that the next Commission should lift these restrictions, but under the current Commission we now lack time and resources.
Are you tempted by the idea, raised by France, of a road transport agency to monitor market distortions?
Having been responsible for administration and budget discharge, I know that there has always been a fierce opposition in general to the creation of new agencies. Yet they are created constantly! So why not a road agency, if this helps to harmonise the policy and solve problems. If member states decide to have such a road transport agency, I would not oppose it. But I don't think that the driving time legislation should be revised.
The mega truck issue came up regularly during your mandate but, in the end, the situation stays the same. Are you satisfied with this scenario?
If society doesn't want to allow these bigger trucks to circulate on their road, it is fully legitimate to prohibit them. This should be up to each member states to decide. The most disputed issue was probably about the procedure. First, I gave in a letter an interpretation of the existing law that if two countries allow mega trucks, they can cross borders. The Parliament was extremely angry that such an important question was dealt with without a change of legislation. Therefore we included this in the revision of the weight and dimension directive - which was overall extremely positive and green. But the mega trucks issue blocked of course this directive. However, I promised to let the Parliament decide on cross-border traffic of mega trucks and the MEPs decided not to allow them. So we go right back to where we started. In Sweden and Finland these types of vehicles were in use before these countries' accession, but I respect also the concerns of Austria as the country is a difficult transit country with infrastructure problems. My view has always been that this is a matter for individual member states to decide based on local conditions. I don't have any intention to have this type of decision made at EU level.
Is the railway reform that you initiated during your mandate, especially with the fourth railway package, on the right track?
The basic direction is clear, and the overall concept is more or less accepted. Now the question is how long the negotiation will take and how heavy it will be with details - how many footnotes, exemptions will be added! Some countries are extremely sensitive about the opening of the railway market and they consider this as the main issue. For me, the main issue is to create a pan-European functioning railway network. This is my aim and dream! To create that, first of all, we must have technical interoperability. You cannot imagine how different the rules are regulating the circulation of locomotives in Europe. Harmonising this technical part has been agreed politically. This is already a big step ahead: there will be a unified technical space for rail. The other big issue is the cross border functioning of railways and the question of vertically integrated companies. We have said, since the beginning, that we accept vertically integrated companies. But what we don't accept is that, if I use your track with my train and I pay for it, then this money should not end up in the pocket of my competitor. This is the basic idea. Nobody should exploit the advantage of being an owner of railways to create unfair competition. Do you know any road hauliers that also own the road? Then comes market opening. Countries are of course extremely different. Some really want it, others are afraid. This is where I would be very attentive. You have countries where rail functions well and regional rail functions well. In that case, where it functions well, why create an artificial situation? On the other hand, if it doesn't function well, then why not allow another player to come and offer better services? In the case of the regional opening, I think one size doesn't fit all.
You have regularly voiced concerned about the delays in implementing the Single European Sky. Is the future looking brighter on this now?
The Italian Presidency plans to have a conference to discuss how to move ahead. I think that, if it is only to repeat our dreams and frustrations, there is no sense. But the Italian Presidency is committed to achieving some success. It was the member states who decided to set up these nine Functional Air Blocks. Technically it would have been possible to create one block. But you cannot turn back and you have today only this chance to implement what has been planned, and hope that it will finally lead to really strengthen the capacity of air navigation service providers. The situation today is that the pressure on air navigation tends only to be felt in the summer time, but the warning is that in 2030 there will be 50% of flight delays if we don't manage these reforms.
So far the Parliament and Council seem to be willing to weaken the new port package considerably. Do you fear this third attempt might fail again this time?
This is a third and more mild attempt. I don't think that there will be a need to withdraw it, but of course it can be one option. It will be up to the next Commission to decide what to do with this port directive. If it is very weak, it worth considering it.
Your mandate is due to end in the autumn, and the work of Commission has slowed down considerably already. Are you satisfied with the results for the transport sector during your mandate?
When I started as transport commissioner, the word transport was mentioned only in one place in strategic documents - as a problem for CO2. Now it is clear that transport has been recognised as an important sector of economy. Interestingly, also during this mandate CO2 emissions from transport came down, when before they were going up! Clearly I consider that the biggest achievement is the TransEuropean Transport Network (TEN-T) and the Connecting Europe Facility. It took three years of very difficult negotiation with member states but the plan is there, with unprecedented investment. The money in 2041-2020 will be three times more than it was before. For transport R&D there will also be 50% more money. Road safety is less advertised, but we have done a lot and the number shows that casualties are going down. Of course the launching of the railway reforms is another achievement. The SES as well because the Commission has been very active even if we didn't fully achieve what we wanted. ITS, clean fuel for transport, eCall are also other successes.
Are you going to leave your post with regrets? What would you suggest to the next transport commissioner to put at the agenda?
We have dealt with aviation, railways and, to a certain extent, maritime, but I think that we should probably in the future look at how to strengthen road transport policy. There are problems cross borders, problems with the quality of infrastructure, with standards. I don't think we should regulate things that can be regulated at member states level, but we should help this very big sector of economy to function smoothly. Also public and urban transport is such a dynamic and vital issue. I n the future, I think that public and urban transport should be profiled more in our work. Not to regulate, but to have a common approach, even in technical standards. I think that the intelligent transport systems, and the enormous development of data processing will also be important. Generally, I hope the next commissioner will continue with the railway and aviation reforms.
What are your ambitions after the Commission? Will you stay in the political arena?
I'll go back home. I've been living here in Brussels for more than 10 years. My children are there, except one already, she is an MEP. We'll see what I do next, I don't want to lose the link with activities here.