Brussels, 14/01/2009 (Agence Europe) - With just a few days to go before the European Parliament transport committee vote in first reading on the revised draft of the Eurovignette directive allowing external costs of road transport to be internalised (noise and air pollution and congestion), the disgruntlement of the motor industry and road hauliers has gone up a notch. In a joint statement published last week by CLECAT (European association for forwarding, transporting, logistics and customs services), the IRU (International Road Transport Union), the EEA (European Express Association) and the ESC (European Shippers' Council), the transport sector states its “serious doubt” about the effectiveness of the proposal with regard to reducing external transport costs. On Wednesday 14 January, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) questioned the relevance of the proposal.
In practical terms, the ACEA reproaches the draft directive presented by the European Commission in July 2008 (EUROPE 9699) with tackling transport issues (such as congestion and pollution) in a way that is “too narrow”. Most external costs of road transport, such as the cost of congestion, are already covered by other instruments and internalised, the ACEA states, taking the view that over-dense road traffic is indeed a hindrance for all drivers but should not impose additional costs to be borne by the rest of society. Delays in transport due to road congestion are already covered by carriers or producers of goods carried by road and are therefore not external, the ACEA states, saying that congestion should not therefore appear among the three “externalities” in the draft directive. The cost of noise pollution is already largely internalised, the automobile industry states, having opted for noise reduction through infrastructure (for example the installation of noise barriers), already financed by road users (taxes on fuel and road tolls). Furthermore, the ACEA states, the cost of air pollution by nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particles (the third externality proposed by the directive) has been reduced by 85% and 95% respectively since the end of the 1980s thanks to the efforts made by the sector and technological improvements (mainly reduction of petrol consumption). It is therefore essential to provide other incentives to renew the fleet of motor vehicles rather than impose additional charges. In its position paper that can be consulted on http: //http://www.acea.be/index.php/files/acea_position_on_the_ revision_of_the_eurovignette_directive, ACEA is also opposed to including in its proposal costs relating to climate change (which can be internalised with fuel taxation), as well as the cost of accidents (when drivers are responsible, these should be approached with road safety measures). The ACEA is also opposed to extending the draft to the whole of the road network, considering that member states are the best placed to judge how useful such a provision would be. When it comes to the road haulage industry, the ACEA considers the draft directive shows that neither the organisation nor the operation of supply chains in the transport sector are included, as it is based on the mistaken hypothesis that increased cost of road transport would ensure more lasting transport. According to the industry, the additional charges imposed on heavy goods vehicles as external costs will, on the contrary, have an adverse effect on hauliers' investment capacity and will thus penalise the development of less polluting vehicles or intelligent transport systems. The joint declaration may be consulted at http://www.clecat.be. (A.By/transl.jl)