Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2023)702 - Amendment of Council Directive 92/106/EEC as regards a support framework for intermodal transport of goods and Regulation 2020/1056 as regards calculation of external costs savings and generation of aggregated data - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)702 - Amendment of Council Directive 92/106/EEC as regards a support framework for intermodal transport of goods and Regulation ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2023)702  |
| date | 07-11-2023 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The European Climate Law stipulates that the European Union needs to reduce its economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% by 2030 as compared to 1990 levels and to achieve climate neutrality by 20501. The European Green Deal Communication2 pointed to the need to reduce transport GHG emissions by 90% by 2050 to achieve climate neutrality. The Zero Pollution Action Plan3 promotes the switch to cleaner transport to reduce air and noise pollution. Furthermore, to reduce its dependence of fossil fuels, the EU also needs to improve its energy efficiency, as highlighted in the REPowerEU package4, which lists the revision of the Combined Transport Directive (hereinafter ‘CTD’ or ‘the Directive’)5 as an important tool in this regard6.
The transformation towards low-emission and low-energy consumption freight transport requires a comprehensive approach. The Commission Communication on Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS)7 emphasises that all policy levers must be pulled to make all transport modes more sustainable, to make sustainable alternatives widely available in a multimodal transport system, and to put in place the right incentives to drive the transition. It calls for decisive actions towards using sustainable transport modes, notably by moving a substantial amount of freight onto rail, inland waterways, and short sea shipping. According to the milestones of the SSMS, rail freight traffic should double, and inland waterways and short sea shipping freight traffic should increase by 50% by 2050. Similarly, the European Green Deal also called for a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road to be shifted to rail and inland waterways.
Intermodal freight transport including combined transport8 (hereafter both together referred to as “intermodal transport”) is essential in enabling a higher uptake of rail and waterborne freight transport, which alone only very rarely provide door-to-door transport solutions. At the same time, the average external cost for rail and inland waterway transport per tonne-km (tkm) are almost three times lower, at EUR 0.013 per tkm and EUR 0.019 per tkm, respectively, compared to the average external cost for Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV) at EUR 0.042 per tkm. Intermodal transport, which includes feedering road legs at the beginning and/or end of the operation, combines the better environmental performance and energy efficiency of these non-road modes with the accessibility and flexibility of road transport. Intermodal transport enables to use transport modes in an efficient combination, in particular promoting those with comparatively lower environmental footprints, thereby optimising the use of the existing transport network and resources and reducing emissions and energy consumption.
Therefore, intermodal transport is instrumental in achieving the ambition of both the SSMS and that of the European Green Deal. The SSMS accordingly announced that to support the greening of cargo operations in Europe, the existing framework for intermodal transport needs a substantial revamp and must be turned into an effective tool.
Even if the performance in volumes of intermodal transport has increased substantially over the last 30 years, road still dominates freight transport in the EU, because intermodal transport is often not competitive with road-only transport due to various factors. First, the success of intermodal transport depends on the performance (availability, reliability, punctuality, speed) and cost of each part of the chain, i.e., the services offered by rail and waterborne transport, transhipment terminals as well as the road transport for the ‘last mile’. There are performance gaps in all those elements that need to be addressed by respective sectoral legislation and industry efforts. Second, as long as the level of internalisation of the external costs between the modes differs, non-road and intermodal transport on medium-long distances is not price-competitive with road-only operations. The SSMS stated that to deliver fair and efficient pricing across all transport modes, a comprehensive set of measures is needed. Only then would polluters and users take full responsibility for the costs they generate, allowing users to make choices aligned with what is best for society. The SSMS also expects full internalisation of external costs within the EU to be completed by 2050, thus making it indispensable to take additional action before such time, to fulfil the objectives of the above-described environmental objectives by 2050.
Since 1975, the EU has had an instrument9 to support eligible intermodal transport operations (i.e. combined transport) with the objective to increase the competitiveness of combined transport vis-à-vis road only freight transport and thereby achieve a higher uptake of combined transport.
In 1992, this instrument was replaced by the Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (CTD). The purpose of the CTD is to complement other modal policies to make intermodal transport involving rail, inland waterway and short sea shipping transport in combination with limited road legs more competitive. The CTD is the only EU legal instrument that directly supports intermodal transport and thus incentivises the shift from road freight to lower emission transport modes.
To increase the effectiveness of the CTD, the Commission made a proposal in 1998 to amend it, but due to no result in negotiations withdrew it in 2001.
In 2016, the Commission conducted a REFIT evaluation10. It concluded that that the CTD continued to be a relevant instrument for supporting combined transport, but that there is a significant margin for further improving its effectiveness as some of its provisions are outdated or unclear. Shortcomings include a narrow eligibility, insufficient economic support and the use of paper documents. Subsequently, the Commission made a new proposal in 2017. This proposal was withdrawn in 2020 as negotiations between the co-legislators had resulted in an outcome that would have reduced the ambition of the CTD at a time when political objectives, as reflected in the European Green Deal Communication11, required the opposite.
To meet these expectations, the Commission has prepared a new proposal to amend the CTD. The objective of the initiative is to refocus the support framework that this Directive creates and thereby increase the competitiveness of intermodal transport compared to long-distance road transport to stimulate the shift from road freight to other modes of transport, and thereby to reduce external costs.
The amended Directive applies to all intermodal transport insofar as the national policy frameworks, reporting and terminal transparency are concerned, and establishes a dedicated support framework for the subset of intermodal transport that saves a certain level of external costs. The latter, being a subset of intermodal transport, continues to be called combined transport.
The lessons learnt from the 1998 and 2017 proposals and negotiations’ outcomes were taken into consideration when designing this proposal. Specifically, these are:
- The need for a fundamentally different approach to the conditions under which support could be granted. The conditions in the current CTD are defined in terms of the length of different road and non-road legs and distances from suitable terminals, which do not always reflect the actual geographical conditions and lead to difficulties in implementation. More importantly, these criteria do not reflect the environmental performance of the actual operation resulting in support not being focused on operations that ensure external costs savings.
- The provisions regarding investments to achieve sufficient terminal capacity, while necessary, do not fit well into the scope of the Directive and were opposed by many Member States. Therefore, these have been now addressed in the Commission proposal for the revision of the TEN-T Regulation12.
- The use of digital solutions for compliance checks and enforcement, which can also facilitate access to data on market functioning and on improving the effectiveness of economic support measures.
- Differentiated situations in Member States that require different approaches to support measures.
Contents
- To address its objectives, this initiative has been structured around four areas:
- - Conditions for support and proof of compliance
- - Support frameworks
- - Transparency of market functioning
- - Terminal transparency requirements
- The objectives of the consultation activities were the following:
- Finally, the following targeted consultation activities were carried out:
- Five policy options were considered in the impact assessment for achieving the identified objectives. These five options all address the following issues:
- - covering a wider range of operations under effective compliance conditions
- - increasing competitiveness through a support framework
- - transparency, cooperation and simplification regarding market entry
The conditions under which intermodal operations fall within the scope of the support provided by this Directive are streamlined to cover a larger share of intermodal transport, to eliminate ambiguities and possibilities for misinterpretations and unequal treatment and to establish a clear basis for compliance decisions. This includes conditions on the geographical scope, loading units and their identification regime, the treatment of empty containers, the minimum of external costs savings to be achieved, the need for rules on calculating external cost savings, and the contents and rules for proof of compliance.
The rationale of the whole Directive is to provide a support framework for intermodal transport including appropriate regulatory and/or economic measures. However, according to the REFIT evaluation, the support framework established by the Directive to enhance the relative competitiveness of combined transport has had insufficient impact. Indeed, 70 out of the 100 responses to the open public consultation confirmed that this is an issue13. The recent European Court of Auditors special report on intermodal transport also concluded that support on intermodal transport was not sufficiently effective as there was still no level playing field for intermodal freight transport in the EU14. The new rules introduce the following on top of existing support:
1. a new EU-wide regulatory exemption from national driving bans;
2. obligation on Member States to analyse their existing measures and extend or establish new national policy frameworks - including appropriate measures of regulatory and/or economic nature - to support the uptake of intermodal transport;
3. an objective of an overall 10% reduction in costs for combined transport in each Member State, to facilitate technological upgrades relevant to intermodal transport, and to establish new connections between previously unconnected terminals.
As concluded by the REFIT evaluation, there is a lack of transparency as regards the existing national policy and market situation that would allow to assess whether support is tailored to the actual situation. 18 out of 49 survey respondents15 agreed or strongly agreed that an empirical basis for determining the adequate level of support is missing. Reporting by the Commission stays, but with updated data and reporting periods, complemented by an obligation on Member States to ensure transparency of their national intermodal policy frameworks that they are implementing for supporting combined transport. Links to all national policy frameworks and national measures will be published in a central gateway managed by the Commission. Further, a review clause for reassessing this EU support framework is included.
The proposal introduces common transparency requirements for terminals ensuring that all terminals make data publicly available on terminal facilities and services. In addition, the proposal provides the possibility to establish a framework of terminal categories, based on service levels, for available services and facilities. These measures are complementary to the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation, which addresses terminal capacity and quality on the TEN-T network.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The initiative has to be seen in the context of the European Climate Law16 and the European Green Deal Communication17, both setting GHG emissions reduction targets. Further, in the context of the REPowerEU package18 aiming at improving the EU’s energy efficiency and identifying the revision of the CTD as an important tool in this regard19, and the Zero Pollution Action Plan20 which promotes the switch to cleaner transport to reduce air and noise pollution. Also, the SSMS calls for decisive action to shift freight transport to more sustainable transport modes.
It should be noted that specific policy considerations relevant to combined transport already existed in the past. In 1992 the Commission published a White Paper on Transport and an accompanying legislative package, which led to today’s CTD, fully liberalising the combined transport market in the EU and providing today’s support framework. In 1997, The Commission published a dedicated strategy on intermodal transport in Europe21. The 2011 Transport White Paper22 set the specific goal of shifting 30% of long-distance road freight (over 300 km) to rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal complements other transport policies, which (a) target the environmental performance of individual modes, (b) internalise external costs by applying the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘user pays’ principles, and (c) provide transparency about the available services and applicable rules for the sector or parts of it.
Making individual modes more sustainable in terms of their energy efficiency and use of sustainable fuels, and thus reducing the external costs of transport, has been addressed by a range of policy tools, such as CO2 performance standards for heavy-duty vehicles23, the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II)24, and the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation.
Similarly, a range of measures already target the internalisation of external costs, with the aim to allow the society to make the right choices. These include carbon pricing, infrastructure charges, and energy and vehicle taxes, which are gradually adjusted and phased in. Eventually they must come together in a mutually compatible, complementary and coherent policy, however according to the SSMS this can take until 205025.
While various transparency and reporting obligations exist in mode-specific legislation, cross-modal reporting or information exchange (relevant for intermodal transport) is to a large extent not covered. Furthermore, the added value and attractiveness of intermodal transport depends on the performance of individual modes and available infrastructure capacity. Therefore, this initiative is developed in close coordination with other transport legislation and legislative proposals, including those within the Greening Transport Package, which this initiative is part of.
It also has strong connections with other parts of this package, notably the initiative for increasing the share of rail in international transport26 and the revision of the Weights and Dimensions Directive27 on road transport, which are both important for removing mode specific barriers to intermodal transport.
Moreover, the new common EU framework for GHG emissions accounting in transport and logistics (CEEU) and the implementation of the Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (eFTI)28 contribute to the technical framework for the implementation of the revised CTD.
The revision is also consistent with the recently adopted Naiades Communication29, which calls for the greater integration of inland waterways into a modern, trans-European intermodal transport system.
In addition, a precondition for the use of intermodal and multimodal transport is the availability of appropriate infrastructure at sufficient capacity. The recent study on transhipment technologies30 showed that there are shortcomings on the TEN-T network for intermodal transport, and that the existing transhipment capacity is insufficient for rail and inland waterway transport. The issue of terminal capacity was addressed in the Commission proposal for the revision of the TEN-T Regulation31, which for the first time includes an obligation on Member States to ensure sufficient multimodal freight terminal capacity based on a dedicated analysis and action plan. These measures can be expected to deliver better infrastructure capacity for intermodal transport over the next decade.
The obligations set out in this Directive are without prejudice to the application of the relevant State aid rules. This Directive will define the criteria for a category of operations with the highest potential for reducing external costs in transport and establish policy objectives for promoting this subset of operations. Member States may consider introducing inter alia State aid measures to achieve the policy objectives in the amended CTD. The mere inclusion of measures in national policy frameworks that are enacted based on this Directive does not exempt them from the compatibility assessment, which falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission.
This proposal is also in line with the final proposals of the Conference on the Future of Europe, in particular Proposal 3 on climate change, energy and transport, requesting to tackle climate change and respect the global climate goals.
Finally, it should be noted that a link between CTD and road cabotage is brought up by some stakeholders. It remains relevant and important to continue to treat international combined transport and international road transport equally as regards the use of non-resident hauliers as provided for in Article 4 of the CTD. In the revision of Regulation (EU) 1072/2009 in 202032, the co-legislators provided a derogation from Article 4 of the CTD (but only in case of it being misused) while reconfirming that Article 4 has been useful and remains in force33.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes the EU’s prerogative to make provisions for the common transport policy. Article 91(1), point (c) TFEU provides that the EU has competence in the field of transport to lay down measures to improve transport safety, while Article 91(1) point (d) TFEU provides the same competence as regards “any other appropriate provisions”.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
EU dimension of the problem
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the EU can act only if, and in so far, as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States. External costs of transport, in particular those relating to climate change, are trans-boundary problems, which cannot be solved by national or local action alone. The pressing need to reduce GHG emissions produced by freight transport applies equally to cross-border and domestic operations. Thus, the problem identified needs to be addressed at EU level because it has a cross-border dimension.
Added value action at EU level
The aim of the initiative is to promote the uptake of intermodal transport, of which 81% is between Member States, across the EU through support measures based on common eligibility conditions. From the policy and the internal market perspective, it is important to ensure that the benefits provided for are applicable in a comparable way throughout the EU. Given the limited nature of the current CTD, some Member States designed differentiated support for intermodal transport operations both in the form of non-harmonised regulatory support as well as under the State aid rules. In certain cases, information about the availability of those support measures may not have been equally accessible to all operators, in particular in case of cross-border operations. Some operators may have gained a competitive advantage with impacts beyond their national border. EU action has the aim of helping to create comparable treatment for operators across the EU, simplifying administrative procedures for industry, the Member States and the Commission and improve the functioning of the internal market. This cannot be achieved by legislating at Member State level only.
• Proportionality
Choices concerning the relevant policy measures and policy option forming the structure of this initiative were made in due consideration of the proportionality principle, thus resulting in the most balanced approach possible. While the proposal puts an obligation on Member States to provide support to certain types of intermodal transport operations, the impact assessment showed that the policy option involving only Member States’ voluntary support will not be sufficient to achieve the objective. The chosen policy option ensures sufficient modal shift at reasonable cost.
• Choice of the instrument
The choice of the instrument, the amendment of the existing Directive allows the satisfactory achievement of the objective of improving the competitiveness of intermodal transport, while ensuring adherence to the subsidiarity principles. To ensure the support, Member States will have freedom to set up their respective policy frameworks with the most relevant support measures.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
An evaluation1 of the CTD was carried out in 2014-2016 and concluded that the Directive continues to be a relevant instrument for supporting freight transport combining different modes. It was estimated that the shift from road-only to intermodal transport had brought along an annual saving of up to EUR 2.1 billion in external costs in 2011. While not all of these savings can be attributed to the CTD, it was established that without EU action, cross-border combined transport services would likely have been faced with barriers due to different legal systems, making combined transport services less attractive and possibly unfeasible.
However, a number of provisions of the CTD, e.g. the requirement to use paper documents, are outdated as they reflect the market situation in 1992. Other provisions of the Directive suffer from diverging transposition and implementation at Member State level, which causes the industry practical problems on a daily basis and hence such provisions are not entirely effective. Furthermore, the economic support measures are very limited and therefore do not have a significant impact on the competitiveness of intermodal operations. In the public consultation, both the industry and public administrations indicated that the policy measures are proportionate for achieving the policy objectives.
• Stakeholder consultations
The Commission actively engaged with stakeholders and conducted comprehensive consultations throughout the impact assessment process.
Consultation activities took place in 2021 and 2022, from the publication of the Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) in August 2021, to the targeted consultation that closed in August 2022.
- to collect information and opinions of stakeholders on the key problems and associated drivers, the definition of relevant policy objectives linked to those problems, and the identification, definition and screening of policy measures that could be considered in the impact assessment;
- to gather information and opinions on the likely impacts of policy measures and options.
As part of the initial feedback mechanism, interested parties had the possibility to provide feedback on the IIA from 19 August to 16 September 2021. A total of 62 individual responses were received.
Subsequently, an open public consultation was accessible on the website “Have your Say” from 7 March to 30 May 2022. In total, 101 responses were received from different stakeholders. Some stakeholders also provided position papers together with their responses to the consultation.
- A targeted online survey aiming to validate the problem definition and the objectives of the policy options, obtain input to define in more detail the policy measures/options, and provide data needed to support the assessment of the impact of the measures and the expected costs. The survey ran from 16 May to 24 June 2022 and received 59 responses.
- Targeted stakeholder interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders between May and August 2022 (including three exploratory interviews conducted in February 2022).
- One stakeholder expert meeting with industry was held on 25 October 2022. There were 60 participants representing 55 organisations.
The stakeholder consultation activities revealed a large degree of agreement among stakeholders that the problems and objectives of the initiative are relevant for the development of intermodal transport.
The IIA consultation and open public consultation focused on the problem at a higher level, after which the survey and interviews took a more detailed and systematic approach to specifying the problem and an associated objective for the revision of the CTD. A common theme in the feedback on the IIA was a lack of clarity surrounding the definition in the current CTD, while others suggested that the CTD should focus more on inland waterway and short sea shipping transport in addition to road and rail transport.
As regards the problem definition, the consultation showed that there is a rather broad consensus among all stakeholders that when no support is provided, intermodal transport was competitive with road-only transport in the EU only in some situations (63 out of 95, 66%). Terminal operators were even more pessimistic, with three out of five considering intermodal transport never or almost never competitive with road-only transport unless supported. The vast majority of industry stakeholder groups agreed that the lack of price-competitiveness was an obstacle to the development of intermodal transport, with the exception of freight organisers (e.g. logistics operators, freight forwarders mostly active in the road transport), who were generally more sceptical in this regard.
Respondents identified six factors as affecting the competitiveness of intermodal transport compared with road-only transport: transhipment costs (87 out of 94; 93%) and lack of suitable terminals in the vicinity (85 out of 95; 89%) were the most prominent ones. For both of these factors, at least 75% of respondents from each stakeholder type and industry sub-category agreed that these were relevant factors. 80% of the respondents considered an additional four factors as being relevant, i.e.: road transport being cheaper than intermodal transport for door-to-door operations (78 out of 94; 83%); habit of using road-only transport (78 out of 94; 83%); lack of suitable service offer in terminals in the vicinity (76 out of 95; 80%); and delay/longer transit time compared with road-only transport (73 out of 92; 79%). For each of these, at least half of the respondents from each stakeholder type and industry sub-category felt that these factors were relevant, while among transport organisers only 3 out of 7 felt that road transport being cheaper than intermodal/multimodal transport for door-to-door operations was a relevant factor.
80 out of 100 respondents (80%) implied that there were differences in the competitiveness of intermodal transport in different Member States, with common reasons being differences in the infrastructure and services that were available, as well as differences in the support provided.
As regards the problem drivers, 26 out of 49 respondents to the stakeholders’ survey agreed or strongly agreed that the current eligibility criteria are too narrow as only operations between Member States are covered, loading units must be of a minimum size to be eligible, and different eligibility conditions apply to different modal combinations. Moreover, 24 out of 49 survey respondents believed that the current eligibility criteria are not entirely relevant to promoting the uptake of intermodal transport and the reduction of externalities. 25 out of 49 survey respondents and 15 out of 29 interviewees considered that the current eligibility definition allows different interpretations.
18 out of 49 survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that an empirical basis to determine the adequate level of support is missing, as the REFIT evaluation had already concluded that the CTD lacks an effective market overview framework that would allow to tailor support measures to the actual situation either at EU or Member State level. 20 out of 49 survey respondents supported the objective to improve data, analysis and reporting on the status of intermodal transport.
According to the REFIT evaluation, the support measures established by the CTD to increase the relative competitiveness of combined transport are very limited. 70 out of the 100 responses to the open public consultation agree that this is an issue, and 19 out of 49 respondents to the stakeholders’ survey agreed or strongly agreed with the low, ineffective and inefficient support measures being an issue.
The SSMS identifies the need to improve multimodal data interchange and smart traffic management to simplify the complex regulatory, administrative and business arrangements. Operators use different systems, with a wide variety of interfaces, dataset requirements and semantics. 13 out of 49 respondents to the stakeholders’ survey agreed that there is lack of interoperability, and that the fragmentation of the different data sharing systems is an important limiting issue. As regards the operational inefficiencies in terminals, 37 of 100 respondents to the open public consultation considered the poor quality of service in terminals to be a factor that undermines the competitiveness of intermodal transport.
• Collection and use of expertise
A study was conducted by an external contractor to support the impact assessment underpinning the proposal (December 2021 - June 2023). It provided valuable insights, in particular as regards designing the policy options, assessing the expected impacts and to collecting the views of the directly impacted stakeholders.
• Impact assessment
The policy measures included in this proposal are based on the results of an impact assessment. The impact assessment report [SWD(2023)351] initially received a negative opinion from the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board [SEC(2023)373]. It was then resubmitted to the Board and received a positive opinion with reservations. The recommendations received from the Board have been addressed and Annex 1 to the impact assessment report provides a summary of how this was done.
Five policy options were considered in the impact assessment for achieving the identified objectives. These five options all address the following issues:
- improving reporting and information on market functioning.
Policy option A is the option with the softest intervention at EU level. It applies to all intra-EU intermodal transport. Eligibility would be based on a wider set of externalities, requiring savings of at least 40% of external costs, with a methodology established based on the unit values from the Handbook on the external costs of transport2. The guidance for calculations would be established in an implementing act3. The data to be provided to prove eligibility would be reviewed and tied to eFTI platforms4. The current biannual reporting obligation on the Commission would be replaced by a call to Member States to carry out regular analysis and strategic planning for sustainable modes of transport to choose appropriate support. While policy option PO-A does not oblige Member States to provide any support, it does provide a Toolbox with predefined support tools to choose from. For terminal transparency and cooperation, common transparency rules for terminals would be introduced with an implementing act.
Policy option B is the option that combines obligations at EU level with flexibility to take into account specific national situations. It obliges Member States to support intermodal transport but gives them the freedom to choose among the different support tools listed in the Toolbox, to address the challenges in national transport systems. This policy option is subdivided into three sub-options with different scope and eligibility conditions. Policy option B1 and policy option B2a apply to all intra-EU intermodal operations, while policy option B2b applies only to cross-border intra-EU operations. In policy option B1, eligibility is based on GHG savings with a threshold of 25% calculated using the methodology of the Common EU framework for GHG emissions accounting in transport and logistics (CountEmissions EU proposal). In policy options B2a and B2b, eligibility is based on a wider set of externalities with a required savings threshold of 40% as in option A. In all policy option B sub-options, the data to be provided for proof of eligibility would be reviewed and tied to eFTI platforms. For market analysis and reporting, all policy option B sub-options would rely on the current obligation on the Commission to prepare reports every 5 years with assistance from Member States and by using dedicated market analysis studies. In all policy option B sub-options Member States would be required to achieve an overall costs reduction as well as increase in technological upgrades, while being allowed to choose from a Toolbox to adapt their support to national circumstances within the given limits. Furthermore, Member States are called upon to facilitate start-up of new intermodal routes. All policy option B sub-options would include a regulatory benefit exempting road-legs of eligible operations from national driving bans. For terminal transparency and cooperation, the measures are the same as in policy option A.
Policy option C establishes the strongest EU level intervention. It applies to all intra-EU operations. Eligibility is the same as for policy option A and policy option B2 sub-options, based on a wider set of externalities with a 40% threshold. Like in other options, the data to be provided to prove eligibility would be reviewed and tied to eFTI platforms. The Commission’s biannual reporting obligation would be replaced by an obligation on Member States to carry out regular analysis and strategic planning, covering the full transport system and including cross-modal analysis. For support tools, it obliges Member States to provide harmonised support to reduce the cost of (the part of) eligible operations taking place in their territory at a level that induces uptake of intermodal transport. This support level is assessed to be 10% of the total door-to-door cost of the operation for the shipper. Also, this policy option would include a harmonised regulatory benefit exempting road-legs of eligible operations from national driving bans. Policy option C would further require establishing a defined data set and obliges the use of common data sets and data exchange protocols. The measures for terminal transparency are the same as in policy options A and B.
Based on the assessment, policy option B2a is identified as the preferred option. It delivers on the objective by ensuring the highest modal shift and external cost savings with a good cost-benefit ratio, while also ensuring coherence and complying with proportionality and subsidiarity principles.
The preferred option is expected to deliver significant recurrent administrative cost savings for businesses operating in the intermodal sector. The recurrent costs savings for operators engaged in intermodal transport due to the use of electronic data and eFTI platforms are estimated at EUR 430 million per year. At the same time, terminals would incur administrative costs for updating the information required to be published on their website. The recurrent annual average cost for all terminals in 2025-2035 are estimated at around EUR 6100. The administrative cost savings largely outweigh the negligible costs and the net administrative cost savings for businesses are estimated at EUR 430 million annually.
To ensure that subsidiarity principle is better served, beyond the outcome of the impact assessment, total flexibility is left for Member States to choose the type of measures they would implement, while they still need to meet the 10% cost reduction target. To ensure informed decisions and achievement of the targets, the preferred option includes an obligation for each Member State to evaluate their existing and potential measures and to consolidate all measures into a single National Policy Framework. This is, similar to, but less demanding than the obligation to have cross-modal strategies analysed under policy option PO-C. It is estimated to have a small impact on costs (additional one-off costs up to EUR 1.1 million plus recurrent costs of EUR 1.6 million every 5 years). These changes do not alter in a significant way the ranking of options and the choice of the preferred policy option.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal is in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal raises net costs for the Union Budget of EUR 2 million over the period 2025-2050. The budgetary impact of the proposal is described in more detail in the Legislative Financial Statement annexed to this proposal.
The budgetary impact beyond the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) is described in the form of an indicative overview, without prejudice to the future MFF Agreement.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Member States are required to adopt and publish their National Policy Frameworks (NPF) compiling existing and new measures that impact intermodal transport at the latest two year after entry into force of this amendment and assess the impact of their NPFs every five years thereafter. They must notify to the Commission their NPFs as well as the results of their evaluations.
The Commission will follow the implementation, results and impacts of this proposal through reporting obligations established under this proposal. 1 year before the application of the Directive, it will establish the baseline situation on the market and then, 5 years after the application of the Directive, and every 5 years thereafter, it will draw up a report on the economic development of intermodal transport in the EU. It will be assisted in collecting the necessary information by the Member States and by aggregated data from eFTI platforms. The reports will address in particular the volume of intermodal transport traffic in the EU, the main intermodal transport corridors, the main barriers to increasing the uptake of intermodal transport, the competitiveness of intermodal transport compared to road-only transport (including an analysis of the support provided by Member States in their NPFs) and developments in terminal capacity.
At latest, after 10 years the Commission will evaluate whether it is appropriate to continue the support regime under this Directive.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The title of the Directive is adjusted to reflect the extended scope by removing the wording ‘between Member States’ and replacing “combined transport” with “intermodal transport”.
Article 1 of the amending Directive provides the following amendments to Directive 92/106/EEC:
- Article 1 of the current Directive provided the scope of the CTD by setting conditions to be met to qualify for the support framework for ‘combined transport’. In the revised Directive, to ensure clarity, two Articles are inserted describing the scope (Article 1a) and providing definitions (Article 1b), followed by a new Article 1c providing the new conditions for operations to qualify as “combined transport”.
- Article 2 is replaced by updated language to remove the redundant target date in 1993.
- Article 3 is replaced by updated conditions for the proof of compliance.
- Article 3a is inserted establishing an obligation on Member States to adopt, publish, implement and evaluate National Policy Frameworks for supporting intermodal transport.
- Article 5 is replaced by updated language on reporting by the Commission.
- Article 6.1 is replaced by updated language to ensure compliance with State aid rules.
- Article 7 is deleted.
- Article 9 is replaced by new language to update obsolete references and simplify the language.
- Article 9a is inserted establishing an obligation to exempt the road legs of combined transport from national weekend and holiday driving bans.
- Article 9b is inserted, to establish transparency requirements for intermodal freight terminals.
- Article 9c is inserted, to establish the conditions conferring delegated powers to the Commission under this Directive.
- Article 9d is inserted, to establish the committee procedure for the exercise by the Commission of the power to adopt implementing acts.
- Article 10 is deleted.
- An annex is inserted, providing an indicative list of support measures referred to in Article 3a.
Article 2 of the amending Directive amends Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 to introduce an obligation on eFTI platforms to provide a functionality for calculating the external costs savings and generation of aggregated data on annual volumes of combined transport.
Article 3 of the amending Directive establishes the obligation of transposition and deferred implementation.
Article 4 of the amending Directive establishes the date of entry into force and application of this Directive.
Article 5 of amending Directive establishes the addressees.